Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 3

Useful sources

• Shane, Scott; Mazzetti, Mark (April 21, 2009). "In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Their Past Use". The New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
• Knowlton, Brian (April 21, 2009). "Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques". The New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2009.
• Shane, Scott (April 22, 2009). "Interrogations' Effectiveness May Prove Elusive". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2009.

Bongomatic 08:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

organize similar to Black site?

I did work to organize the article black site. My intent was to clarify several levels of information: facts that are officially recognized/reported; facts that have been assembled from various unofficial sources; controversial issues; and then detail about the process of obtaining facts through non-official sources (investigative history).

I propose to reorganize this article to reflect that structure.

One benefit would potentially be to get as many referenceable facts as possible in the "fact" section and then clearly mark other parts as part of the controversy and/or "subject to investigation."

Shi Gelei (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I say be bold and go for it. This article needs help anyway, so i dont think you will make it worse. Bonewah (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Spin

Did CNN write this article? This article is spun so far to the left it's pathetic... Please re-write!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline

As this article kept appearing on the report Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Headlines_start_with_three_"=", I fixed the first headline and adjust several others. This changed the outline as follows:

Old

New

* 1 SERE program * 2 The War on Terror o 2.1 Department of Defense o 2.2 CIA o 2.3 Legal opinions + 2.3.1 Unitary Executive Theory + 2.3.2 Suggested origin of legal opinions o 2.4 Official position of the Bush Administration o 2.5 Public and international reaction o 2.6 Destruction of evidence o 2.7 March 2009: ICRC report publicly reported * 3 U.S. State Department position on the use of similar treatment by other nations * 4 Legality o 4.1 International law o 4.2 US law o 4.3 Ban on interrogation techniques o 4.4 Request for Special Counsel Probe of Harsh Interrogation Tactics o 4.5 International calls on Obama to investigate and prosecute o 4.6 Preventing UK courts to investigate * 5 Criticism * 6 See also * 7 External links o 7.1 Articles o 7.2 Books * 8 References

* 1 SERE program o 1.1 The War on Terror o 1.2 Department of Defense o 1.3 CIA o 1.4 US governmental legal opinions + 1.4.1 Unitary Executive Theory + 1.4.2 Suggested origin of legal opinions * 2 Official positions and reactions o 2.1 Official position of the Bush Administration o 2.2 Public and international reaction o 2.3 Destruction of evidence o 2.4 March 2009: ICRC report publicly reported o 2.5 U.S. State Department position on the use of similar treatment[..] * 3 Legality o 3.1 International law o 3.2 US law o 3.3 Ban on interrogation techniques * 4 Investigation of enhanced interrogation techniques and prosecution o 4.1 Request for Special Counsel Probe of Harsh Interrogation Tactics o 4.2 International calls on Obama to investigate and prosecute o 4.3 Preventing UK courts to investigate * 5 Criticism * 6 See also * 7 References * 8 Further reading * 9 External links

-- User:Docu (April 28, 2009)

Torture

Whether this was torture or not is debated. Unless you are referring to individuals referring to these techniques as torture I don't think the word should be used. 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was torture or not is debated in certain circles of the USAyan Right. It is not debated anywhere else. Presenting the issue as being "debated" is an example of gross distortion of reality by giving an undue weight to a fringe point of view.

What does "USAyan Right" mean? There is widespread debate about whether the various techniques are torture or not, because each technique is different, and some are more severe (waterboarding) while others are comparatively mild (lack of sleep, standing for long periods). Just because one technique is called torture by its critics doesn't mean that all EIT is torture. Furthermore the severity often depends on variables such as the duration. Lastly there is the fact that the term torture is an extremely subjective phrase, especially when used to describe methods that don't cause physical pain. For example waterboarding causes great fright and discomfort, but no physical pain, so saying that it is definitely torture is debatable by reasonable persons, not simply "fringe" persons. Walterego (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be comparable to an article avoiding to say that the attacks of the 11 of September were terrorist because it is "debated", in certain circle, whether the US government might have organised the thing. Rama (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories because they dispute what is widely believed to have happened, whereas there isn't any dispute about what happened when the three Al Qaeda members were waterboarded in 2002. We know what occurs during waterboarding, the debate is over what term ought to be used to describe what occurs, whereas the claims that what occurred on 9/11 were controlled demolition rather than a jet plane inferno, are extremely controversial beliefs of a very few radicals, and can thereby be fairly classified as fringe.Walterego (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, the ludicrous assertion that waterboarding not torture is an extremely controversial belief held by a very few radicals. Mostly people who are currently under threat of prosecution and their political supporters and allies in one country. Actually I think it is overstating the case to call it a 'belief'. It is more of a legal defense strategy. Dlabtot (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They aren't similar because this belief is not merely held by a very few radicals, but rather by a sizable portion of politcally conservative-leaning persons, in the country in which it is an issue. Personally I think waterboarding just barely crosses the line into torture (but definitely not the other techniques of EIT), but I would have a difficult time proving objectively that waterboarding is definitely torture. I would guess that most persons of all political perspectives would view waterboarding as at least something very near to torture. A 2007 CNN poll found that 1 of every 3 Americans does not believe that waterboarding is torture: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/index.html That's around a hundred million people. The past three Attorney Generals did not believe it was torture, although the current one does. Furthermore, that third of americans might be in the minority, but they do have some logical basis for their belief, which is that the word torture is most commonly understood to mean physically harming someone, which we all know for a fact waterboarding does not do. What it does do is create the sensation of suffocating which causes intense short term anxiety and fear, even panic. Whether that is torture is a very, very subjective question, one that is dependent on the duration and frequency, and it seems that most people decide the issue based largely their political bias one way or another. The UN Convention Against Torture defines it as "severe pain and suffering" but leaves what "severe" is or isn't open to interpretation. Walterego (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, those who are under risk of prosecution and their political allies in one country have adopted this legal defense strategy. And, yes, two years ago, there was a larger number of Americans who agreed with this amoral philosophy than do now. I don't think those facts are really in dispute, as you have demonstrated. Dlabtot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The legal matters are empty grandstanding by sleazy politicans and lawyers. No one was ever at serious risk of prosecution within the U.S. The much hoped-for show-trial in Spain is not likely to be of any consequence either.

Whether or not it was "amoral" for the CIA to waterboard fascists depends on whether or not the CIA believed it was technically "torture". We now know that they spent a lot of time deciding when torture begins. The truly amoral thing would be to give unlawful combatants the same legal protections as legitimate POWs. That's just asking for more war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point Rama. The ip of this fellow is curiously discussed here - www.miqel.com/internet_business_fraud/paid_links.html - Basically the article leads me to think it could be a proxy job or some for hire astroturfing/edits. But... I am a paranoid libertarian goof. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.160.217 (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Random comments

That seems to be the crux of the disputes here. If this article is about the specific methods used by torturers, it should be merged with Torture. If it is about the euphemism, it should mention that the same euphemism was used by the Gestapo and the history of the use of this and similar euphemisms in propaganda. Since no one seems to agree on what the article is about, it's no surprise that it is a jumbled mess. Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the article about the much discussed catchphrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what it stands for, which should discuss mainly its current use and meaning, but I agree, that a previous use of similar euphemisms for torture deserves a mention. If you have reliable material that touches this subject, please add it.

Larkusix (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article used to have something about Andrew Sullivan's quirky Gestapo link. I don't know why it's gone but there were always problems with it. I'm not opposed to running with something like it again but it needs real sources. Sullivan has since disgraced himself (again) by telling people that the British didn't do stuff like this.

Considering that they did, it's plainly wrong to pretend that we got these techniques from the Gestapo.

BTW: Perhaps we need a section on the British techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously need to familiarize yourself with our reliable source guideline. Your opinions about Andrew Sullivan are totally irrelevant to the question of whether Harper's Magazine is a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the RS guidelines very well. I'm just trying to keep this article from failing the laugh test. Your Harpers link is mostly a long quote from Sullivan's long quotes from a website. Somehow, I can't imagine that you'd be happy phrasing it that way in this article.

The main problem here is that it's deceptive. The Gestapo was an internal security force. It's simply wrong to have a section on their interrogation limits on local civilians, and then pretend that's the way the Nazis operated on high-level prisoners so that we can compare that to our treatment of high-level jihadis. Sullivan is being mind-numbingly ignorant here. There's no reason we have to be.

BTW: These links don't help your "euphemism" take. The excerpts that Sullivan gives don't say where "harsh interrogation" ends and "torture" begins. They don't even use the word "torture". At best, all we know from this is that they found these treatments to be illegal when used against non-combatants. We already knew that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Harpers really is a reliable source, any assertion that it isn't is patently absurd. The rest of your comment is totally irrelevant. We base Wikipedia articles on what reliable sources say about the topic, not on the tortured (pardon the pun) arguments of Wikipedia editors. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I explained that. The Harpers columnist is basically correct. He said that Sullivan said that a website said this stuff. But neither Sullivan's excerpted source nor the Harpers columnist had used the word "torture". Are you really going to hang your hat on that?

Furthermore, it is highly relevant to this article if we slant it in a direction that conflates the Nazi's interrogation of civilians with the CIA's interrogation of unlawful combatants.

If you dig around Sullivan's original source you might find better material that makes for a better comparison.

BTW: Thanks for the 3RR warning, but I've been keeping count. I had repeatedly invited Larkusix to explain his lack of sources in the talk section.

If he thinks about it a bit, he could simply rephrase it to explain this was what happened post-9/11 instead of pretending that the Bush administration started the practice of EIT. He also rolled back other changes and sourses without explaining them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your assertion that you are 'keeping count'. This confirms that you are aware of the WP:3RR rule and our general restrictions against edit warring.

The reality is that you actually did revert four times in a 25 hour period. [1], [2], [3], [4] This is edit warring. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The rule is 24 hours, not 25. But the bottom line is that he had a misleading assertion with no source, and I asked him repeatedly to discuss this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are misunderstanding our rules against edit-warring. I suggest you read the 'Definition of edit warring' on WP:ANEW. Dlabtot (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The expression used is _adopted_. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Bush administration invented the catchphrase (although I cannot find an earlier mention of the exact phrase, for the same or similar techniques, if you can, please provide it), but it _adopted_ the phrase and made it known worldwide. I hope you don't demand that I prove a negative.

2) It is nowhere stated that the Bush administration invented the torture methods mentioned. Torture obviously existed before.

3) Not only waterboarding is called torture by the relevant experts. Other methods are mentioned, too: Sleep deprivation, forced prolonged standing, forced nakedness and exposure to cold and loud music are mentioned as torture, too, among other techniques.

Some examples: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO MARK FIRST UNITED NATIONS DAY IN SUPPORT OF TORTURE VICTIMS ON 26 JUNE 1998: "Torture is one of the most profound human rights abuses, taking a terrible toll on millions of individuals and their families. Rape, blows to the soles of the feet, suffocation in water, burns, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, shaking and beating are commonly used by torturers to break down an individual's personality. As terrible as the physical wounds are, the psychological and emotional scars are usually the most devastating and the most difficult to repair. Many torture survivors suffer recurring nightmares and flashbacks. They withdraw from family, school and work and feel a loss of trust." [[5]]

Amnesty International on Lebanon 2000: Methods of torture reported included sleep deprivation, prolonged standing, psychological torture, beating, electric shocks and Farruj (chicken) where the victim is strapped to a revolving wooden bar resembling a roasting spit and beaten." [[6]] on Lebanon 2001: Former detainees at the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre have stated that they were routinely tortured during interrogation. Methods of torture include electric shock, food and sleep deprivation, Ballanco (hanging by the wrists, which are tied behind the back), and threats and verbal abuse." [[7]] on Mauritania 2008: "The torture techniques documented by Amnesty International research missions are numerous and include sleep deprivation, cigarette burns, the suspension of detainees from a metal bar (technique known as the “jaguar” position), blows and psychological torture. These techniques are often used together to force detainees to “confess”." [[8]]

Human Rights Watch cites the U.S. State department on various issues: "The country reports cite the stripping, handcuffing, being doused with cold water, and blindfolding of prisoners among the principal methods of torture used by Egyptian authorities." "According to the 2001 and 2002 country reports, some of the many methods of torture employed by Turkish security forces and recognized by the State Department included repeated beatings; forced prolonged standing; isolation; exposure to loud music;" [[9]]

ICRC on psycological torture 2007: "Sleep deprivation has been used as a method of interrogation in many contexts and for many centuries. The Romans used it to extract information from their enemies, calling it tormentum vigilae (waking torture) or tormentum insomniae, and it is still very much in use today.76 Detainees are usually kept awake for several days; when they are finally allowed to fall asleep, they are suddenly awakened and then interrogated, harshly or otherwise. They may be deprived of sleep in many ways, for instance by guards banging their batons all night long on cell bars. Sometimes detainees are made to adopt what is called ‘‘forced positioning’’. This may be just standing against the wall, or crouching down or in any posture that quickly becomes uncomfortable and precludes any meaningful sleep. Or interrogators may wake detainees up every time they close their eyes. Sleep deprivation is often used in conjunction with other psychological methods, including hooding, being stripped naked and the use of various restraints. The old proven method of repeatedly playing a scratched record and blaring out an endlessly repetitive tune for hours or days on end is still used as an effective way of depriving prisoners of sleep." among other examples. [[10]]

A point may be made that the so called "attention grab", "attention slap" and "belly slap" may be only ill-treatment, when viewed isolated, because they don't fullfill the condition of "severe pain or suffering" [[11]] per se, but the systematic and cumulative use of "minor" techniques over a prolonged amount of time "has to be considered as part and parcel of the of the effects of psychological torture." [[12]]

But you have been through this on this talk page before with other editors.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the "Verschärfte Vernehmungen", I think I have to clarify some facts. Both the Gestapo as well as the SD (Sicherheitsdienst) of the SS, utilised "Verschärfte Vernehmungen". As you can see in the protocols of the Nuremberg trials, POWs were subjected to these measures, too, provided they were expected to know something useful, as well as "unlawful combatants" or "terrorists" of course, such as the members of the resistance, among others.

Colonel Storey: "Now the SD and Gestapo also conducted third-degree interrogations of prisoners of war; and I refer to Document 1531-PS, Exhibit Number USA-248. This document contains an order of 12 June 1942, signed by Muller, which authorized the use of third degree methods in interrogations where preliminary investigation indicated that the prisoners could give information on important facts such as subversive activities but not to extort confessions of prisoners' own crimes. Now I quote from Page 2 of the English translation, Paragraph 2: "Third degree [Verschärfte Vernehmungen] may, under this supposition, only be employed against Communists, Marxists, Jehovah's Witnesses, saboteurs, terrorists, members of resistance movements, parachute agents, asocial elements, Polish or Soviet Russian loafers, or tramps. In all other cases, my permission must first be obtained." Then I pass to Paragraph 4 at the end: "Third degree [Verschärfte Vernehmungen] can, according to the circumstances, consist amongst other methods, of: "Very simple diet (bread and water); hard bunk; dark cent; deprivation of sleep; exhaustive drilling; also in flogging (for more than 20 strokes a doctor must be consulted)." [[13]] [[14]]

Mr. Counsellor Smirnov: "Official formulas to be used in "especially severe interrogations" [Verschärfte Vernehmungen] or, rather, interrogations with application of torture, were issued by the corresponding German police departments." [[15]] [[16]]

Larkusix (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do expect you to prove a negative if that's what's required to source these statements. I'm not so much opposed to your putting forth a reasonable claim and finding a source later, but this one simply doesn't work from the beginning.

Since most of these techniques were in the CIA set for decades, it's far more likely that these phrases had been used during most of that time. Even if we used the preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof, instead of reasonable doubt, surely, you must understand that that it's highly unlikely that it was the Bush administration that "adopted" these terms. In fact, it appears that the U.S. stopped using EITs (in favor of rendition) during a period of relative peace, and resumed again after the war started.

Just think about it: Even if they were previously called something other than "enhanced interrogation techniques" it's very doubtful that they ever officially called it "torture".

I agree that these lesser techniques may be called "torture" by some people. There are two problems with that. One is that it isn't as widely held to be torture as waterboarding is. We've had sources from groups like HRW that used the word "torture" for waterboarding but didn't use it for the other techniques (even though they disapproved of those other techniques as well). The other problem is that there are degrees. As you've indicated, they can become torture if taken to excess. But similarly, they're not torture if not taken to excess.

Another issue is that in your haste to reinsert your position, you had reverted back over some other previous edits as well. None of those changes were explained.

On "Verschärfte Vernehmunge", your first link discusses "third degree", but it doesn't specifically state that it's all torture. Your second link does discuss torture but it definitely goes well beyond the EITs. The use of even the mildest of these techniques on those who qualify for POW status was already illegal.

I think "Verschärfte Vernehmunge" does belong in this article as long as we decide the article is international in scope. I don't believe any of the sources we've had so far demonstrate a valid connection from Gestapo methods to American EITs. As I've said, the British also used some of these methods.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: adopted =!= invented.

Proof the Bush admistration adopted the phrase in question: "The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe." [[17]]

Countercheck: Number of documents found in Google Scholar using the phrase "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" before 2004: 0; since 2004: 117. If you object to the numbers, present a counterproof.

Just for clarification, this article is about the use and meaning of the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", this term wasn't in use before the Bush administration, as I have shown. I propose the following compromise: "Enhanced interrogation techniques, also referred to as so-called "rough interrogation", "harsh interrogation", "the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods", and "alternative set of procedures", is an euphemism adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States to describe methods of torture used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which they claimed were necessary to extract information from captives as part of the War on Terror."

The techniques described constitute torture. You have been through all of this with other editors, such as Rama. I have followed the discussion on this talk page for a while, and I don't wan't to go through the same discussion that you had with previous editors. If the relevant authorities agree, that something constitutes torture, then we can assume that it is torture. I presented several sources, and you were presented other sources by other editors before that confirm the consensus that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture.

On the other changes, material from unreliable sources was added, while material from reliable sources was removed. I have no objections about your addition of material about Panetta per se, although I ask myself what is the relevance of his statements on the ban of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

On Verschärfte Vernehmungen, oh well... I have the impression the goalposts are a bit shifty today. Your claim: "Furthermore, it is highly relevant to this article if we slant it in a direction that conflates the Nazi's interrogation of civilians with the CIA's interrogation of unlawful combatants." I showed that the Nazis did use verschärfte Vernehmungen on 1)POW's 2)persons considered unlawful combatants at their time, like for instance the French resistance. So, no slant at all. You suggested digging around Sullivan's sources. I did. I looked up the documents of the Nuremberg trials. You criticized that Sullivan's excerpts didn't mention the word "torture". I showed you, where his sources did. Your reaction? Just critizize some other points.

Both links I provided lead to the proceedings of the Nuremberg trials. Both quotes talk about "Verschärfte Vernehmungen", as you can see, when you compare them with the German versions. The US translated it with "third degree" , the Soviets translated it with something that in the English translation became "especially severe interrogations". Both talk about "Verschärfte Vernehmungen" and the Soviets described those as torture. See the order about "third degree" [Verschärfte Vernehmungen]: [[18]]

If you have reliable sources that link British torture and mistreatment of captives with the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", show your sources and we can discuss it.

Larkusix (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The interrogation methods were secret, and used by a very small number of people at the CIA. There shouldn't be much on the internet prior to those leaks (which at this point, those leaks appear to have been authorized).

No, this article is not about the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." It's about the techniques themselves. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to say those other names for it (rough interrogation, etc.). That said, we do need to decide what the scope of this article should be.

The problem with the word "adopted" is that it implies that harsh interrogation started under the Bush administration. They didn't.

Reading your posts suggests you believe that, from 1776 to 2002, the U.S. had never used any form of rough interrogation. Then the Bush administration took over, and the formerly-gentle CIA had to pull out the old Nuremberg transcripts so they could learn how it was done. They liked it so much they ran "Verschärfte Vernehmungen" through their language translation software and got "EIT".

I didn't merely criticize other points. The Nazis techniques in your link went well beyond the EIT ones, particularly in the ones where the word "torture" was used.

But it doesn't matter. Clearly, harsh interrogation goes well before the Bush administration. here's a link I gave before. It's a paper on interrogation law.

For the fifty years prior to 9/11, the United States consistently professed high ideals about its interrogation policies but at the same time authorized aggressive interrogation policies when the security threat seemed (to the President and intelligence and military officers) to warrant them.

They didn't use waterboarding, but the full range of techniques was much broader back then:

Other special interrogation techniques investigated included truth drugs (such as sodium pentothal), heat and cold, atmospheric pressure, narco-hypnosis, and total isolation;175 the use of “electric methods” was authorized by 1963.176 Classified Agency publications advocate the use of temperature extremes, minimum sustenance, jostling without physical harm, heavy physical exercise, and other “hostile methods that may endanger the subject’s mental and physical health.”177 The use of chemicals during interrogations was authorized with varying levels of Agency approval at least until the late 1960s.178 (As you can see by the numbers, everything is referenced.)

But we shouldn't have to go back only to 1947. I believe the term third degree is much older than that. (We should investigate that for this article.)

As for the British, I'm surprised you hadn't heard of Andrew Sullivan's latest fuss. He tried to claim that Winston Churchill opposed torture. Unfortunately, President Obama fell for it, and repeated the claim during a recent news conference.

There is a small grain of truth in it. Although Churchill didn't oppose anything that could save Britain from defeat, the British interrogators did use sleep deprivation, threats of execution, and more. This goes back to July 1940, which predates the Nuremberg trials. Whether or not you define those techniques as "torture" is up to you. It's not the Iron Maiden.

After the war, the British ran the Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, which led people to take notice of atrocities after they started interrogating communists, too. If you dig around a bit, there's a picture somewhere of an emaciated German prisoner.

It's not that these techniques are linked to the CIA ones. I think it's self-evident that harsh interrogation goes back to prehistoric times. But the notion that the CIA learned this stuff from the Nazis is absolutely absurd.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to completely misunderstand me. The US introduced the phrase "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" in 2002. I have provided evidence for that. To counter the claim, you have to provide a document using the same phrase for the same or at least similar things, dating from before Bush's presidential term. So I can write, the Bush administration _adopted_ the phrase as refering to these things. If I write, that the Bush administration _adopted_ this phrase as an euphemism for torture, this does not mean that the Bush administration was the first to use torture, torture was obviously used before, in other places as well as in the US. But this isn't an article about torture in general, it is an specific article about a certain phrase for certain torture techniques, that has become infamous world wide in the last couple of years.

I don't argue that the article must include "Verschärfte Vernehmungen", I just argue that if there are reliable sources for a link between specifically "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" and "Verschärften Vernehmungen" , then we can include them. If you can present reliable sources that link specifically "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" with torture in other times and places, we can discuss to include that material, too.

Btw., have you thought about the formulation I presented as a compromise?

Best regards, Lark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" was revealed to the public around the time of the ABC News article. When they started using it internally is something we just don't know.

It could very well be that the CIA used to call it something else, and decided only recently to use "EIT", but that's a pretty thin case to base an article. What then about the phrases "third degree" and "alternative set of procedures"? Do we start separate articles on those?

But, yes, if there were a reliable link between EIT and Verschärften Vernehmungen then that would be interesting.

This is something we could check if we were talking about Shakespeare. It's a simple matter to put all his works into a folder and then search for phrases there. If you want to say that you've got every secret document from decades of CIA interrogation files, and you've performed a similar test, even then it still wouldn't indicate any kind of a link to Verschärften Vernehmungen.

As I said, none of the techniques are shared only by the CIA and Nazi Germany. In fact, the use of music and the CIA's modern form of waterboarding may be the only two U.S. techniques that first saw use in the 20th century.

Let's face it, the only reason to mention Verschärften seems to be that critics fell in love with making Bush-Hitler connections. I can't complain about that. You may have noticed that I find some joy mentioning how the so-called "anti-war" left had also existed at the start of WWII. Anything they say today about Bush had been said then about FDR for his obvious desire to support Britain. They called FDR a warmonger (and the U.S. hadn't even entered the war yet), but they themselves became instantly pro-war the moment Hitler invaded the Soviet Motherland. Then they became the ones who most strongly supported the internment of Japanese-Americans, and so I don't doubt they'd have supported real torture. They usually do. Consequently, I find the fuss over Verschärften Vernehmungen to be extremely funny.

I don't see any improvement from your suggested compromise. There are three problems:

There's no real evidence that it's a "euphemism". The only references we have are critics of the U.S. side of the war who like to call it that.

The word "adopted" isn't good enough. It was "reinstituted" by the Bush administration, but it didn't start there. I'm not opposed to mentioning Bush. In fact, I think people who supported the fight against fascism should be remembered every bit as much as those who defended fascism.

The biggest problem is the plural form of the word "torture". I realize I'm not going to win that one today, but there's another reason you should give it some thought: The article presently gives the impression that the Obama administration ended the use of "torture". But this is only true if waterboarding and slaps were the only methods of "torture". Some of the people cited by this article as calling more of these things "torture" are still saying that it continues to be permitted under new Army Field Manual that the Obama administration wants the CIA to rely on.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Torture remains torture, no matter who commits it. A change in government is no reason for me to stop calling a spade a spade and I believe this is true for most of the contributors of this article, too. Larkusix (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point. If someone calls it "torture" under the CIA's previous rules, and then still calls it "torture" after the procedures were lightened, then maybe it's still torture. Or, maybe the party calling it "torture" was never a serious judge of when harsh interrogation ends and real torture begins.

Their record of objectivity isn't a very good one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You aren't really trying to claim that the UNCHR, ICRC, AI and HRW aren't reliable sources for determining if something constitutes torture or not, are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.16.62 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They are notable organizations, and so their opinions are interesting. They are notable sources we can use to document what their opinions are, but they're certainly not unbiased.

The UNCHR is made up of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, among others. If they ever took a position genuinely in support of human rights, they'd probably consider it to have been an accident.

The other organizations sometimes do good work but they also have histories of bias. Sometimes it's for political reasons, and sometimes it's for fundraising.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear a bit like Don Quixote fighting against the wind mills. On the one side we have an overwhelming majority of experts on human rights (look in the article), on the other side we have the small number of those in the Bush administration involved in the "enhanced interrogation techniques" and those defending the Bush party line with claws and teeth (because, you know, this talk about torture is only a liberal plot to smear Bush's legacy...) Larkusix (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, Don Quixote usually refers to a hopeless and deluded fight for a noble purpose; here we have the paradox that our outlandish combatant is fighting for the most repugnant cause conceivable. Rama (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are still some impartial sources. NPR refers to it as "what some describe as torture." That said, I recognize that we're not aiming for NPR's level of objectivity.

This isn't about Bush's legacy. That will stand or fall on its own.

I'm trying to do two things here: 1) I'd like to attempt some tiny bit of balance. That's a lost cause on Jihadpedia, but every tiny bit helps.

And 2) I can take notes to make sure that some things don't slip away. As I've mentioned before, the far left switched from "anti-war" to pro-war overnight after the Hitler-Stalin pact was broken. Those leftists would later want us to forget they weren't always as stridently opposed to Hitler as they'd later pretend to be. Unfortunately, they largely succeeded at that. I can make sure that doesn't happen this time.

As for "the most repugnant cause conceivable," I think we all know what side that is. That's the side that had three of it's members waterboarded. That's obviously not the same side I'm defending.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to follow the swarm of red herrings. Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The need for some form of dispute resolution is fairly clear

I only first looked at this article and talk page a few days ago. The article is a mess, there's edit-warring, and the talk page discussions are entirely unproductive, mostly not even agreeing to discuss the same topic. Clearly some form of dispute resolution is in order. What form should this take? I've become cynical about the efficacy of RfCs - they tend to just prolong the arguments and rarely seem to lead to consensus. I suggest mediation. What say you? Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that RfCs are a waste of time, but I don't have any faith in mediation either.

I recommend that we think about what should be in the header, and what sections we should consider adding/removing.

We should first decide whether this is about U.S. programs, or forms of interrogation during wartime by all countries. If it's international in scope then the header needs to reflect that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution would you be willing to pursue? Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

None yet. I think we can decide the scope of this article on our own.

If it's only about U.S. interrogation methods then we can ditch the ideas of what happens in foreign countries. If it's about enhanced interrogation worldwide then we can rewrite the header to reflect that. This should give us some clarity. Then if we do want mediation, the mediators will have a place to begin. They'll want to know this stuff anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you are edit warring: [19], [20], [21], [22], and reject all forms of dispute resolution.

Thank you for making your position clear. Dlabtot (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying we don't need it yet. I've offered a possible solution that should allow all sides to advance a bit further before we get to the point where dispute resolution is really needed.

If we can't even agree that we need to decide on the scope of article this article then we have an even bigger problem.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution would you be willing to pursue? -- None, yet. I acknowledge your assertion that this is not a rejection of dispute resolution. Dlabtot (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on a mediator then go ahead and call one. I'm just saying it might be best if you first figured out what you want.

As you said above, "Since no one seems to agree on what the article is about, it's no surprise that it is a jumbled mess." Certainly, we can both agree that we should endeavor to work on deciding what this article should be about.

As I said in this section, "We should first decide whether this is about U.S. programs, or forms of interrogation during wartime by all countries. If it's international in scope then the header needs to reflect that." Please note, I haven't stated a preference. I can live with either one of those two. If you have other options then you're more than welcome to make suggestions.

I'm not the edit-warring person here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I request Mediation, you'll agree to participate? Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends. What do you want them to intercede on?

I still don't know why you think my suggestions weren't workable. Nor do I know why you took Larkusix's side in keeping incorrect, misleading, and unsourced claims.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reluctance to simply answer is illustrative of why we need some type of formal dispute resolution such as mediation. I've clearly stated a few of the many problems with the page, but the main problem is that editors are not trying to work towards consensus, rather, it is a confrontational atmosphere characterized by edit-warring and a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'll just make the request and then you can agree or disagree to participate as you see fit. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments for what they're worth: Pexise (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation techniques, rough interrogation, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods, and alternative set of procedures are used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which they claimed were necessary to extract information from unlawful enemy combatants as part of the War on Terror. There is dispute as to whether the enhanced interrogation techniques led to the extraction of useful intelligence. Members of the Bush administration, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, hold that the techniques have saved many lives, while the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, holds that the information could have been acquired using other means.

• In this first section: are the terms still used by the CIA? If not, should be "were" - I don't doubt that the CIA could still use these terms, enless there is a source that says the term is no longer used.
• As the article is about the use of the term, the reference to use by the Gestapo should go here - e.g. "The term was also used by the Gestapo to describe torture they employed during the National Socialist dictatorship in the early 20th century. (SOURCE)"
• THis isn't the place to get into the dicussion about whether they were successful techniques or not - that should be included later in the article.

The lawsuit carried out by the ACLU, helped to release memos on certain techniques to be used in interrogations toward Al-Queda detainees. The U.S. Department of Justice from the Office of Legal Counsel determined that the techniques to be used did not violate U.S. Constitutional laws.

• THis makes no sense here as it refers to a lawsuit as "the lawsuit" as if it had been discussed before, with no prior mention of said lawsuit. I would also question whether the lawsuit in question should be mentioned in the lede.

Despite the use of the term "enhanced interrogation techniques", the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations,Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons, Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH),Amnesty International, the National Lawyers Guild, , the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , Dame Stella Rimington and many other experts classify them to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective. For its use on Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, the government of Canada added the United States to a list of countries that employ interrogation methods that amount to torture.

• No need to list all of the organisations here in the lede, they can be mentioned later. A summary such as "a large number of human rights organisations and legislative bodies and many other experts classify them to be torture. (SOURCES)"

Although reactions by the administration and its supporters were ambiguous, former President Jimmy Carter is among those who publicly stated in an interview on October 10, 2007: "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law." A December 2008 report involving both of the US' main parties referred to:

a February 2002 memorandum signed by President George W. Bush, stating that the Third Geneva Convention guaranteeing humane treatment to prisoners of war did not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees, and a December 2002 memo signed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, approving the use of "aggressive techniques" against detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, as key factors that lead to the extensive abuses.

and more precisely:

Senate investigators said the seeds of the policy originated in a Feb. 7, 2002, memo signed by President Bush declaring that the Geneva Conventions, which outline standards for the humane treatment of detainees, did not apply to captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Responding to the report, Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that the CIA asked his advice regarding these techniques less than a year after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and he helped get the "process cleared."

• Not sure if these bits should be here, the lede isn't the place to get into these discussions, these sources can be included later. Pexise (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For what my opinion is worth, I think that

• the article "Enhanced interrogation techniques" should be about the euphemism rather than the facts themselves (either as main article, or redirect to verschärfte Vernehmung -- I would favour the former)
• the content of this article belong to Torture in the USA, and because of its length, probably to US torture during the Bush administration, Torture in the USA during the Bush administration, or something of the sort. Rama (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If this article is about the term, rather than about the techniques, then why is it also called "rough interrogation, the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods, and alternative set of procedures"?

Shouldn't that be removed?

As for any claims that it's rooted in "Verschärfte Vernehmung," I hope you guys have better references than what we've seen before. So far, all we've seen is Andrew Sullivan saying that there are some similarities. But as I've pointed out, there are also similarities to British techniques. I know it's hard for some people to believe that interrogation techniques go way back, and so there will naturally be a lot of similarities, but people really should give some thought to this stuff before parroting every left-wing loon on the internet.

I would think that, at some point, even some of the most leftward editors will want to look out for the dignity of this article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Unsurprisingly, there are already articles on:

• Torture and the United States
• Human rights in the United States
• Human Rights Record of the United States

That last one is really about a propaganda report put out by China, although most people can't tell the difference between that and Jihadpedia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who believes there was ever a shred of credibility to the "Verschärfte Vernehmung" nonsense, see: Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques#imprecise translation.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree to all of Pexise's points.

I propose the following wording for the first sentence: "Enhanced interrogation techniques, also referred to as "rough interrogation", "harsh interrogation", "the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods", and "alternative set of procedures", was an euphemism adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States to describe methods of torture used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which they claimed were necessary to extract information from captives as part of the War on Terror."

Larkusix, the main problem with that wording for the first sentence is that it describes all of the enhanced interrogation techniques as "methods of torture", when only one method (waterboarding) is regarded as actual torture by a majority of people. The other methods, when performed as authorized, are not considered torture except by a few left-leaning human-rights activist organizations and critics of US foreign policy. For example the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons (cited in the 2nd para) criticised waterboarding as torture, but not the other methods. (So that we're clear, the article defines the EIT used by the CIA as six specific techniques: 1. Attention Grab. 2. Attention Slap. 3. Belly Slap. 4. Long Time Standing. 5. Cold Cell. 6. Waterboarding. 7. Humiliation/Nakedness 8. Isolation 9. Hooding/Sensory Deprivation. Those are all the methods described as authorized for use on detainees at Gitmo.) Some critics have called these methods abusive and degrading, but that is not the same as torture. How about if the sentence is reworded "Enhanced interrogation techniques, also referred to as "rough interrogation", "harsh interrogation", "the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods", and "alternative set of procedures", was a phrase adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States to describe interrogation methods used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), at least one of which is considered by many to be torture, and which several alleged Al Qaeda operatives were subjected to." Walterego (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable: "waterboarding" is regarded to be torture by everybody, except the people involved in its use. Stating "at least one of which is considered by many to be torture" is giving undue weight to a very marginal point of view.

That's incorrect. Waterboarding is not regarded to be torture by everybody except those people involved in its use. The CNN poll I quoted showed that one third of all Americans do not regard waterboarding as torture. So this is not a very marginal view. It basically boils down to this: liberals and moderates consider it torture, while most conservatives do not. Declaring it unilaterally to be torture is just like a conservative declaring that abortion is murder, or a euphemism for murder. Torture is an emotionally loaded phrase, which is very subjective when applied to anything beyond obvious physical harm.Walterego (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the other "techniques", it has been made clear that they have been used in manners in which they fall soundly into downright torture. Even if we assume that making somebody so "physically uncomfortable" that he "talks" without it being torture makes any sense at all, it is obvious that these hypothetical cases were not those in which the prisoners were treated. Notably, the similitude between the "techniques" used in Abu Grahib and recommendations in "torture memos" is too striking to ignore. Rama (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the use of torture in Iraq I have found this interesting source. An interview with an interrogator. Larkusix (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It has not been made clear that they were used in manners in which they are torture. It makes perfect sense that making someone disorientated through sleep deprivation etc will result in his talking (although perhaps not giving very accurate intel, which is why "rapport-building" techniques replaced EIT at Gitmo around 2003-2004). By definition, EIT forbid causing the captive physical injury. It simply isn't possible take sleep deprivation, cold, fatigue, isolation, humiliation to an extreme which crosses into torture without causing physical injury. Sure the captive may be miserable, despondent, exhausted, frightened and confused. But that is likely the mental state of any prisoner, only more so. But not tortured.Walterego (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no clue. Try this or this to inform yourself and also have a look at this. Larkusix (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your language is unnecessarily insulting and rude. If you wish to achieve a consensus then you should be more respectful. In fact I had already read Dr Reyes' opinion published by the ICRC, an organization which acts as an advocate for the detainees and would naturally be prone to exaggerating any disadvantageous treatment towards them "torture". Even he concedes that for EIT to possibly be torture, it would have to be used in an extensive duration of cumulative time. But the approved EIT sets limits on how long a detainee can be sleep deprived or made to stand. Reyes' article deals with the broad subject of psychological torture, not the EIT authorized in Gitmo and by the CIA. His most extreme examples are the most compelling, when he discusses sleep deprivation he cites the way it was done by the KGB, when he discusses isolation, he relates it as done in Uruguay where it was done for years and even the guards didn't talk to the prisoners. In comparison the CIA's EIT seems rather benign. It also is very similar to the UK's "5 methods", which Reyes concedes were evaluated by the European Court of Human Rights and found to not be torture, and that Australia's Prime Minister John Howard said that sleep deprivation was only torture under certain severe circumstances. The HRW piece wanders and doesn't make a clear point except to suggest that EIT would be torture if taken to extremes beyond its approved limits. The PHR paper is another activist diatribe that goes on for 46 pages. What is the relevant quote from it that you found so compelling? None of these examples that you cited seem are very convincing that the compromise wording I had suggested above, essentially that EIT are methods of interrogation "at least one of which is considered by many to be torture", is not appropriate. Walterego (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been perfectly established that the manner in which the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are used is indeed "used in an extensive duration of cumulative time". Refer to the number of victims who died, or to the way in which waterboarding was used.

Since this article is about the facts and not the propaganda term, we have no reason to allow the Bush administration to frame the terms of the problem. That they advertised "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is essentially irrelevant, what matters is people beaten to death, waterboarded for hours a day for weeks, burnt with cigarettes, crucified, etc. Rama (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By "techniques" used in Abu Ghraib, if you mean those in the pictures, then they don't count. Since the prosecution of those guards began long before the story hit the front page, it's hard to claim they were authorized techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Then they don't count"? And in honour of what, exactly? These are archetypal examples of the consequences and the "techniques" of the "Torture memos". That these sad people were used as scapegoats changes nothing to the fact that their acts are in line with what was recommended. Rama (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The prisoners you've seen on the initial set of pictures were in that section of the prison because of a riot. They weren't there for interrogation.

This article is about Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. If these were authorized interrogation techniques then the guards wouldn't have been charged for violations, and then the we'd never have heard about Abu Ghraib.

The so-called "Torture Memos" are irrelevant to military interrogation at Abu Ghraib anyway. They might have mattered to the CIA but they didn't affect the Army. The guards were ranked either sergeant or below. They never would have seen the memos. The officers in charge of interrogation wouldn't have seen them either.

Besides that, if the memos did affect the guards, then why were they charged? Do you think the officers who charged them were immune?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that the soldiers later found guilty had been ordered to "soften up" their prisoners by civil contractors and so-called "other government agencies". That they themselves did not interrogate their prisoners is irrelevant. As you known full well, the dead body displayed on the photographs of Abu Ghraib was killed during an interrogation, as he was being crucified by a CIA agent, who has not been charged for this crime.

Manadel al-Jamadi was not crucified or given a "Palestinian Hanging" as you have claimed in previous talk sections (although that phrasing was used by a few media accounts which you quoted). In a Palestinian Hanging a person is cuffed behind his back, and then lifted off the ground and his arms pulled back and above his head, causing extreme pain and dislocating the arms. Manadel al-Jamadi was simply stood against the wall with his hands cuffed behind his back. Then a second, longer segment of leg cuffs was cuffed at one end to the window bars and at the other end to his handcuffs. As a result he could stand quite comfortably leaning against the wall, so long as he did not attempt to sit down. He only stood like this for 45 minutes. The problem was that the injuries sustained during his arrest caused him to pass out and collapse, but the CIA interrogator thought he was faking unconsciousness to avoid answering questions. He was mistaken, but not guilty of a crime. When he was unconscious his arms were then elevated which impaired his breathing and contributed to his death. At most the interrogator neglected a medical problem (the broken ribs), but he wasn't a doctor/medic. He perhaps wasn't aware of the seriousness of the rib injury and would not have been likely to forsee that placing tension on the rib cage by the detainee slumping with his arms up & behind him would impair breathing. But Jamadi was never lifted up by his arms. Had he not passed out he would have been completely comfortable. The problem in this case was a lack of proper medical attention, not the EIT. Walterego (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up.

If the critics are willing to redefine "torture" whenever it serves to denigrate the U.S. then it's no surprise that they'd also redefine a Palestinian Hanging.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "torture memos" are very relevant. Orders and encouragements to torture were given to soldiers by CIA agents, who had themselves been encouraged to used torture after the memos were published. That one particular grunt would not have had access to the actual document is completely beside the point. It is the atmosphere that matters, and we know what sort of atmosphere there was.

Your other points are all answered by the fact that sad grunts of Abu Ghraib were scapegoats. It is extremely common when scandals about torture arise to sacrifice low-ranking individuals to protect decision makers, especially in otherwise democratic countries. That the CIA agent who actually killed someone was not indicted, or that Karpinski was blamed instead of Miller, are symptomatic of the pattern. Because, of course, if you did try to pull the string, you would go all the way up to Yoo, Gonzales, Addington and Cheney. Rama (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that had not been "established".

It doesn't wash. It doesn't explain why they were prosecuted to begin with.

The "soften up" claim was made by the guards as their excuse. Those who pled guilty recanted that claim. While you can believe it if you like, it's an act of faith, and nothing more.

The point wasn't that the guards did or didn't interrogate them. It's that those prisoners weren't being held there for interrogation at all. Neither military intelligence nor the CIA had an interest in speaking with them.

This demolishes the idea that the "Torture Memo" influenced the guards at Abu Ghraib. Let's not forget that the memo said something like "pain associated with organ failure" meeting the definition of torture. Well, none of the actions by the guards came anywhere close to that. That's true even if the guards had been telling the whole truth about their "soften up" claim.

Yes, one prisoner was killed during interrogation by the CIA. We have a photo of his body but he was not one of the ones supposedly being "softened up" in the pictures. How do we even know about that prisoner? Because the Army's investigation revealed it. They could have covered that one up easily, as there were others who'd been legitimately killed in riots. Again, this is something that doesn't fit the comic book conspiracy worldview. The CIA interrogator wasn't charged with the killing because the coroner ruled the real cause was not from the "crucifixion" as you call it. It was from beatings, and so it was the SEALs who brought him in who were charged.

I don't know how you could expect the CIA interrogator to be charged after that. As anyone can figure out, had he been charged then his lawyer would merely have hold up the coroner's report and the case would be laughed out of court. Even the comic book conspiracy worldview should recognize that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The photographs are the reason why there was a prosecution. Photographs havea powerful impact on public opinion and make it more difficult to ignore atrocities. The amount of scandal generated by Abu Ghraib has no common measure to that generated by Bagram for this precise reason.

How you conciliate "Neither military intelligence nor the CIA had an interest in speaking with them" and "Yes, one prisoner was killed during interrogation by the CIA" is beyond my grasp. As for the "coroner ruled", I remind you that physicians who examined the body stated that the beating could not have caused the death, and were not informed that the victim had been crucified. Indeed, one went on record to say that the fact would have been relevant to the autopsy. If you want a typical Pinochet-like cover-up, this story is one. Rama (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the photos became public long after the prosecution of the guards had begun.

The investigation began in January 2004, as did Karpinsky's recall back to the U.S. The first legal charges were filed in March. The pictures were leaked to the press in late-April, only after the guards were pushing their "soften up" story. It was only then that it became a major story. The press didn't care about it until they had the pictures.

The Army could have destroyed the pictures right at the start if they wanted to, but they chose to prosecute the soldiers instead.

I suggest that you read closely. When I wrote, "Neither military intelligence nor the CIA had an interest in speaking with them", that was in reference to the "soften up" claim. The infamous guards had nothing to do with that incident.

As for the coroner changing stories, if so, that explains the SEAL officer's acquittal. It doesn't make it possible to prosecute the CIA interrogator.

It doesn't really matter, though. Your contention seems to be that General Karpinsky was sacrificed but that CIA interrogator (who's of considerably lesser stature) was protected. It doesn't fly. Even if you weren't flat-out wrong about the photos being the reason why there was a prosecution, that still doesn't fly.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Verschärfte Vernehmungen shouldn't go into the lede. While the phrases are similar they aren't equal, and it is basically only one source [[23]], that translates "Verschärfte Vernehmungen" as "enhanced interrogations". The literal translation would be "sharpened interrogations" (sharp = scharf,-e,-es; to sharpen = schärfen, verschärfen; sharpened = geschärft,-e,-es, verschärft,-e,-es), the US translated it in the Nuremberg trials as "third degree", the Soviets as something that in the English translation became "especially severe interrogations". I'm not opposed to including "Verschärfte Vernehmungen", especially because the similarities are striking, but in case it is used, it should go into a separate section.

To claim that the Bush administration got their techniques directly from the Nazis would be of course nonsense, but it would be an option to mention, that there have been specific euphemisms for torture before, especially, if they are so strikingly similar, or even equal to the ones used now. If reliable sources support it, it can also be pointed to that what was used as "enhanced interrogation techniques" now was persecuted as war crimes back then.

Larkusix (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, I found a second, independent source, that translates "Verschärfte Vernehmung" as "enhanced interrogation". "Charges of torture as a war crime were also brought in a post-WW II tribunal in Norway for the use of "verschärfte Vernehmung" (enhanced interrogation) techniques, including induced hypothermia. See, Case No. 12 – Trial of Kriminalsecretar Richard Wilhelm Hermann Bruns and two others by the Eidsivating Lagmannsrett and the Supreme Court of Norway, 20th March and 3d July, 1946. [[24]]." Rona, Gabor,Legal Issues in the 'War on Terrorism' - Reflecting on the Conversation between Silja N.U. Voneky and John Bellinger(January 12, 2009). German Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 5, p. 719, 2008. Available at SSRN: [[25]]

Larkusix (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If "To claim that the Bush administration got their techniques directly from the Nazis would be of course nonsense" then what is the connection? What purpose did people have in bringing that up?

You and they did bring it up for a reason. It was only after that Andrew Sullivan spell that people started saying this article was about the term EIT as much as the techniques themselves.

I must say I do think the fuss over this could merit a mention in this article. It was obvious balderdash, and those who push nonsense like this (in defense of fascists during a time of war, no less) should never be forgotten.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "Enhanced interrogation techniques" would be quite typical of the Lingua Tertii Imperii. The "techniques" are not really "Nazi", but the Nazis did not use very sophisticated "techniques" either, mostly beating; the "watertub" is a French colonial innovation, already reported in Indochina in the 1920s.

The "techniques" described as "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are more French, especially the utilisation of water and electricity; cold and sleep deprivation look more Russian; beatings, rape, cigarette burns etc. are of torturers of all places and all times. I do not think that I have seen anything original in the US torture techniques. Rama (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We may not agree on much, but you seem to be agreeing that Verschärfte Vernehmung was irrelevant.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No I do not. That the exact same words be used is not innocuous. I have made repeated calls for an article to be created about euphemisms for torture. I do not know what more I can do to stress that this is relevant. Rama (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not the exact words. The meaning is slightly different.

But that doesn't matter. It's not much of a coincidence that the words could be similar. The purpose of the techniques is for "interrogation", and the procedures are "enhanced" or "sharpened" from whatever the main set is.

For that matter, the phrase "third degree" isn't that much different either.

To call this a euphemism is a joke. A genuine euphemism would be something along the lines of Enhanced Conversational Manners.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, slightly different meaning. What a relief. That must make a world of difference when you are being crucified to death.

Indeed there is no much of a difference, because few people will admit that they actually torture, and they all come up with the same lame euphemisms. No, indeed, "third degree" is not much different, nor are the French "certaines méthodes", etc.

Dismissing "Enhanced interrogation techniques" as an euphemism because it is not "Enhanced Conversational Manners" is typical of the set of mind of torture cover-up: "Oh look, I just waterboarded the chap, but it's not torture, see! Torture is, like, flogging". But if you have a taste for really ludicrous euphemisms, may I remind you that the "Enhanced interrogation techniques" include a so-called "frequent flyer programme". Rama (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's a euphemism, it's a dull one.

You seem to be redefining "euphemism" the way you redefine "torture".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think that "interrogation" is not a strong euphemism for "torture", you must have a very interesting notion of how interrogation should be conducted by the military of a civilised country. I am surprised that you could claim to have served in the US military, whose interrogation manual very clearly condemns and forbids any form of torture. No, interrogation and torture are two completely different things, when done by law-abiding and competent people. Rama (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I infer correctly, you seem to be revealing that you see no difference between harsh interrogation and torture.

You also seem to be revealing that you don't believe a distinction should be made between lawful and unlawful combatants, which means that Common Article 2, and the Third Geneva Convention's Article 4 should be ignored.

My own personal belief is that harsh interrogation is sometimes necessary, and that it does not have to cross the line into actual torture. If people don't like it, they should ask Islamists, fascists, and socialists to respect the laws of war so that, when captured, they can earn the right to legitimate POW status.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinions are irrelevant.

"Harsh interrogation" doesn't mean anything legally. There are proper and improper interrogations. Someone who starts talking about "harsh interrogation" is often torturing people and using the term as an euphemism. What the Bush administration called "harsh interrogations" encompassed life-threatening exactions that fall soundly, by any criteria, most notably US criteria, into torture.

Distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants are made by a competent tribunal, and after it is made, neither category can be tortured. Prisoners are considered to be war prisonners, with all priviledges and protections warranted by the Geneva and Hague conventions, until proved otherwise.

Application of the Geneva conventions by a party is not conditioned to their application by the other party. Stating otherwise is not a receivable argument, as the Nuremberg trials proved.

Your personal opinions are irrelevant. Since they are also revolting and repugnant, I would be grateful if you could spare us. Rama (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misinformed about the GCs. Competent tribunals would be necessary in wars between countries, but not in wars against non-state actors. The critics gave up on that one years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court recommended something similar for purposes of U.S. law, which is why we have CSRTs, but they never ruled that competent tribunals are required to satisfy the GCs in this war. They're not.

This is why I mentioned Common Article 2.

"Harsh interrogation" may or may not mean something legally, but "torture" does, and not all forms of interrogation are torture even if they're considered harsh. For that matter, a harsh interrogation can be conducted in an illegal manner, and prosecuted, while still not crossing the line into "torture".

You might as well admit it: you don't believe an interrogation can be harsh, even in the slightest bit, without it being called "torture".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously politically incorrect wording

Reading the first line of this article just gives me the impression of an incredible bias...

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but there is a bright side: Obvious bias in the beginning can serve as a warning to cautious readers.

It might be much worse to have a biased article with a first line that fools readers into thinking it's objective.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Randy - This article is a mess, a jumbled mass of ad hominums and conclusory allegations that is badly disguised as a scholarly article on the topic. I'm with you on this. How can we clean it up?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much hope on this one. This article will never be clean.

I still think it would be best if we could all at least agree on what this article should be about.

If it's all "torture" then it should be merged into one of the Torture articles, like Torture and the United States. Even though I don't agree, at least then we'd avoid duplication, and the people working there could be held responsible for the article, faults and all.

If it's not all torture then we'd need to agree whether this article should be about EIT as practiced by the U.S. or other countries as well. Since this article began with an obvious intent, it is likewise obvious what the "consensus" would be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I sense zealotry, Randy, hardly a positive contribution to a scholarly work. I'll keep trying.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening

I made some changes. The problem you have is that, believe it or not, there exist two schools of thought on this subject. One school of thought sees this as merely interrogation, the other as torture. However, even those who state this is torture do not see every technique as torture, and the term "torture" itself is a legal determination under international and US law. Thus, sleep deprivation is not torture unless it goes to such ane extent that it causes mental injury, and evidence suggests that sleep deprivation did not cross the line. Waterboarding is torture, but it was only used against three individuals, and not against others. The point of the changes is to make this article more neutral, which should be all of our objectives in this process. As it stands, this article is a jumbled mess, and needs serious editing to meet standards. As this is the case, please comment before making any more changes so that we can reach some sort of consensus like adults, and so that this article can gain a neutral appearance and content. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"I made some changes." Indeed.

"...there exist two schools of thought on this subject." One holds that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture methods, the other that they are not. It's just that both sides are not equal. The vast majority of sources supports the view, that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are torture methods.

"However, even those who state this is torture do not see every technique as torture..." Which concrete sources do see which concrete techniques not as torture. Please provide references.

"...the term "torture" itself is a legal determination under international and US law." Yes, this is adressed in the article.

"...sleep deprivation is not torture unless it goes to such an extent that it causes mental injury,..." I'm not aware of any definition of torture that involves "mental injury", whatever you mean by that. UNCAT: "...severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...", WMA: "...physical or mental suffering...", IACPPT: "...physical or mental pain or suffering..." IHL: "...severe suffering or pain." [26]

"...and evidence suggests that sleep deprivation did not cross the line." Please provide it. There is already evidence in the article that suggests the contrary. "Eleven of the fourteen alleged, that they were deprived of sleep in the initial interrogation phase from seven days continuously to intermittent sleep deprivation that continued up to two or three months after arrest." [27] And by the way, what would you expect. The intent of using sleep deprivation, either solely or in combination with other techniques is to break prisoners to make them talk and you can't break someone, without making him suffer severely enough that he rather talks, than suffer any longer.

"Waterboarding is torture, but it was only used against three individuals, and not against others." Your Honor, I must object, my client murdered only three individuals, but not others, it would be prejudiced to call him a murderer!

"The point of the changes is to make this article more neutral..." The neutral point of view, held by the overwhelming majority of sources, is, that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are indeed methods of torture. Failing to say so would be giving fringe positions undue weight.

"...this article is a jumbled mess,..." I wouldn't say that. "...and needs serious editing to meet standards." Which standards? FA standards? Most articles need serious editing to reach these standards. But I admit that this article doesn't meet my standards either. So I agree, editing is appropriate.

"...please comment before making any more changes that we can reach some sort of consensus..." Do you see the irony in first making changes to an article and then politely demanding from the other editors to refrain from making changes.

"...like adults..." Please...

"...so that this article can gain a neutral appearance and content." So I ask you for the following: 1)Revert your changes. 2)Then engange in discussion with the other editors and present your reliable third-party sources for the claim that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniqures" are not methods of torture. If you want to contest the sources that are already in the article, please lay out your reasons and provide sources that support the claim. 3)Discuss any other claim you wish to discuss (and provide the respective sources).

"Thank you." Thank you and best regards, Larkusix (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of sleep deprivation is not "torture". It's to get detainees to lower their guard.

The "overwhelming majority of sources" will call waterboarding "torture" but they are still uncertain about the other techniques.

BTW: Although they may not call it that, there is still some level of sleep deprivation permitted under President Obama's rules. They were allowed four hours per night under the old regulations in GTMO. That ended years ago, but I think it's still permitted under limits set in the new Army Field Manual.

Naturally, the critics are howling over that. (That's what they do -- especially the fascists' lawyers who have an obligation to say this stuff.) I wouldn't be opposed to listing them (in fact, I generally support naming names), but it's wrong to say that their opinions represent the absolute truth. Fascism has many defenders. Volume and quantity don't guarantee certainty.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"The purpose of sleep deprivation is not "torture"." Correct. The purpose of a screwdriver is not "a tool". The purpose of sleep deprivation, either by itself or in combination with other techniques, is to break detainees. All "coercive techniques" are used to get detainees to "lower their guard" or "resistance" - lower and lower, until they break. "1. Purpose. This SOP document promulgates procedures to be followed by JTF-GTMO personnel engaged in interrogation operations on detained persons. The premise behind this is that the interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are appropriate for use in real-world interrogations. These tactics and techniques are used at SERE school to "break" SERE detainees. The same tactics and techniques can be used to break real detainees during interrogation operations." [28] Breaking prisoners always involves suffering severe enough, that the prisoner rather does what you want, than endure the suffering any longer. As you can see in any world-wide recognised definition of torture [29], suffering resp. severe suffering is the main criterion of torture.

If you have reliable third-party sources, that maintain that "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a whole or in particular are not methods of torture, please provide them. What I find interesting is what the Istanbul Protocol has to say about that: "The following list of torture methods is given to show some of the categories of possible abuse. It is not meant to be used by investigators as a checklist or as a model for listing torture methods in a report. A method-listing approach may be counter-productive, as the entire clinical picture produced by torture is much more than the simple sum of lesions produced by methods on a list. Indeed, experience has shown that when confronted with such a “packagedeal” approach to torture, perpetrators often focus on one of the methods and argue about whether that particular method is a form of torture.Torture methods to consider include, but are not limited to:

(a) Blunt trauma, such as a punch, kick, slap, whipping, a beating with wires or truncheons or falling down;

(b) Positional torture, using suspension, stretching limbs apart, prolonged constraint of movement, forced positioning;

(c) Burns with cigarettes, heated instruments, scalding liquid or a caustic substance;

(d) Electric shock;

(e) Asphyxiation, such as wet and dry methods, drowning, smothering, choking or use of chemicals;

(f) Crush injuries, such as smashing fingers or using a heavy roller to injure the thighs or back;

(g) Penetrating injuries, such as stab and gunshot wounds, wires under nails;

(h) Chemical exposures to salt, chilli pepper, gasoline, etc. (inwoun ds or body cavities);

(i) Sexual violence to genitals, molestation, instrumentation, rape;

(j) Crush injury or traumatic removal of digits and limbs;

(k) Medical amputation of digits or limbs, surgical removal of organs;

(l) Pharmacological torture using toxic doses of sedatives, neuroleptics, paralytics, etc.;

(m) Conditions of detention, such as a small or overcrowded cell, solitary confinement, unhygienic conditions, no access to toilet facilities, irregular or contaminated food and water, exposure to extremes of temperature, denial of privacy and forced nakedness;

(n) Deprivation of normal sensory stimulation, such as sound, light, sense of time, isolation, manipulation of brightness of the cell, abuse of physiological needs, restriction of sleep, food, water, toilet facilities, bathing, motor activities, medical care, social contacts, isolation within prison, loss of contact with the outside world (victims often are kept in isolation in order to prevent bonding and mutual identification and to encourage traumatic bonding with the torturer);

(o) Humiliations, such as verbal abuse, performance of humiliating acts;

(p) Threats of death, harm to family, further torture, imprisonment, mock executions;

(q) Threats of attacks by animals, such as dogs, cats, rats or scorpions;

(r) Psychological techniques to break down the individual, including forced betrayals, learned helplessness, exposure to ambiguous situations or contradictory messages;

(s) Violation of taboos;

(t) Behavioural coercion, such as forced engagement in practices against one’s religion (e.g. forcing Muslims to eat pork), forced harm to others through torture or other abuses, forced to destroy property, forced to betray someone placing them at risk for harm;

(u) Forced to witness torture or atrocities being inflicted on others." [30]

Whether Obama or the Army Field Manual permit or not permit something and who criticizes or not criticizes them for that has absolutely no bearing on whether the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute a collection of torture methods or not. Please stay on topic.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

UNCAT's definition can be boiled down to this: "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental".

It's obvious that that list of SERE techniques does not meet that criterion. In fact, some of us have always known that the SERE part of the "torture" meme was knee-deep in B.S. It's interesting to finally have this public link.

As bad as it is that this was released (it will weaken SERE's purpose, and enable our enemies to defeat the training more quickly), this does show how utterly shallow the critics' concerns were. A maximum of ten minutes (and a mandatory logbook entry) of standing with small rocks in their palms while making sure they're *not* facing the sun or floodlights. That's severe pain or suffering? That's pathetic.

As for the fact that a detainee may "break", keep in mind that these things may be used in conjunction with other measures that may be pleasant. That someone breaks isn't any kind of a sign that they've been treated too badly.

The Istanbul Protocol is for investigating and documenting actual torture. That the items on their list are part of it does not mean that every item qualifies as "torture". Forex, if someone was to blindly use this as a checklist (as it says we shouldn't) then they might condemn someone as a "torturer" for verbal abuse alone.

Does shouting profanities seem like "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" to you? Or is it "torture" if used in combination with ten minutes of standing with small rocks in their palms? It doesn't get funnier or sadder than this.

Maybe you'd better take another look at all 12 pages of this. That's real torture. That's what America's enemies do, and some of those enemies have friends in the so-called "peace" movement.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I cited the Istanbul Protocol: "Indeed, experience has shown that when confronted with such a “packagedeal” approach to torture, perpetrators often focus on one of the methods and argue about whether that particular method is a form of torture." You wrote: "That the items on their list are part of it does not mean that every item qualifies as "torture"." Do you see the irony?

1. The "GTMO SERE Interrogation SOP" showed that the purpose of the techniques was to break prisoners with coercive methods. 2. Coercive methods, like the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", always involve suffering, or they wouldn't be coercive. 3. Breaking someone with coercive methods, always involves suffering severe enough that he rather complies with the demands of the interrogator than endure the suffering any longer. Being pleasant to someone for a change doesn't change that. You should well know, that there were more techniques approved for Guantanamo than those listed in the "GTMO SERE Interrogation SOP" [31], and that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually used did go beyond what was listed in either document. [32] I gave an example: Sleep deprivation for more than 7 days. [33] I give another one: Stress standing for more than 40 hours. [34] Care to adress my examples?

Lark: I believe Randy has rather amply addressed your concerns. Making someone feel bad about themselves is hardly torture. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't and you haven't either.

But lastly it is evidence, that counts, so I ask you - again - and any other editor that tries to defend that point, to provide reliable third-party sources for the claim that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" do not constitute a collection of torture methods.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an alternate opinion from a notable attorney. She addresses how the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the "five techniques." (That court has "Human Rights" in its name, which seems to impress some people.) It concerns sleep deprivation, stress positions, among other things, and the court ruled that to be "inhuman and degrading treatment" but not "torture".

This shoots more holes in the belief that any kind of unpleasantness that makes people talk is necessarily torture. It's not.

And, again, it exposes the SERE part of the "torture" meme as being ridiculously naive.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This opinion piece fails to consider, like the lawyers of the Bush administration before, the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Selmouni v. France:

"However, in the recent past the Court seems to have shifted its position significantly. In Selmouni v. France (1999) the Court said that: “certain acts which were classified in the past as «inhuman and degrading» as opposed to «torture» could be classified differently in future. The increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies”. Selmouni v. France is clearly a very significant case because it suggests that the Court is willing to open previous Convention case law and re-evaluate its findings." [35]

Considering furthermore that "[...]the [European] Commission [on Human Rights] concluded that the interrogation techniques employed by the British security forces in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s – wall standing, hooding, restricted diets, subjection to noise and sleep deprivation – amounted to acts of torture[...]" [36] before relating the case to the ECHR, it can be hardly constructed as shooting holes in the position that EIT constitute a collection of torture methods.

Furthermore, four of the five techniques are listed by the Istanbul Protocol as torture methods.

So, have you any other sources that support your claims about the EIT?

You are entitled to your opinion, but have you any reliable third-party sources that corroborate your claims about SERE?

Larkusix (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Court's opinion in Hamden stated that Detainees were not POW's, but that they were due Art. III protections regarding humiliation. You read too much into this opinion, as this like saying the sky is blue. The EC's ruling has precisely zero affect on US Courts and law. Thus, you are interjecting European legal precedent, and trying to utilize this as a basis for forming a legal determination. The US basis for torture centers instead on whether the techniques utilized cause or have the capacity of causing serious physical and mental injury. Thus, wall standing may be torture, if it exceeds a certain time limit. Loud music may be torture, if it rises to such a level as to cause hearing loss. Sleep deprivation may amount to torture, if it is used to such a point so as to cause mental injury. Even a drip of water can be viewed as torture. However, all of these acts require a degree of use that makes it torture. In short, your analysis fails to make your case. You have the burden in this case to show that these acts amounted to such a degree so as to amount to torture. How about standing against a wall for ten minutes. Is that torture? How about if I wake you up from a dead sleep, and let you go back to sleep again. Is that torture? In both cases, a European Court has stated that these actions are torture, yet the absurdity of looking to the techniques while conveniently forgetting to analyze the practice should be evident. In the case of IRA prisoners, the practices not the techniques were analyzed. That's the whole point of the term "amounted to". Even the Istanbbul Protol you cite to states clearly "“Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental..." In short, the "method" used must "reult" in "severe pain or suffering, whether phyical or mental" to amount to torture, even in the eyes of the UN. The Istanbul Protol also acts as as a reporting guideline for documentation of allegations of torture, not as a set of guidelines for practices. Your points as to SERE are particularly mystifying, coupled with your jump in logic that gaining information through interrogation is "always" an act resulting from "torture". Holding someone in a jail is itself a form of "coercion". Being in jail is a form of suffering. Should you not then argue that under your own definition, being in jail constitutes "torture"? Should I then throw out every criminal defendant's confession in custody because it "can only have arisen from" torture by the state? In conclusion, I find your points hardly worthy of consideration until you can direct my attention to acts that arose to such a level so as to have caused severe physical and/or mental suffering. Otherwise, your points have no merit in this regard. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not I that brought up the ECHR. Another editor was citing a source (an opinion piece, for what it's worth), that was using the decision of the ECHR on Ireland v. The United Kingdom as an authority. I countered his claim by citing a more recent decision of the same authority.

I'll add that Larkusix was asking for "reliable third-party sources for the claim that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniqures" are not methods of torture."

That matter is settled. As his link indicates, even the Association for the Prevention of Torture is conceding that a threshold presently exists. There's no requirement that we consider that EIT "could be classified differently in future." That might work just fine in Europe but, as a matter of U.S. law, a new treaty would have to be negotiated.

If you want the article to say that some people believe the other techniques are also torture, then that's fine with me. Just be sure we list some of the people making that claim.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You failed to "settle the matter". Again, I repeat, it was you that brought up the ECHR (in an opinion piece, which doesn't fall under the guidelines of RS anyway). My source doesn't support the claim that the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" don't constitute a collection of torture techniques. So the question remains open: Where are your reliable third-party sources?

1. This article is not about the euphemism "Enhanced interrogation techniques", but about the facts, as they happened. For instance, the Bush administration claimed that waterboarding was used for a few seconds on three detainees; we known that waterboarding was applied for hours a day, for week, on at least two detainees. We will not ignore the facts because they do not match the rosy description of the Bush administration.
2. The "techniques" include waterboarding, which is almost universally regarded to be plain unambiguous torture. The people who do not consider waterboarding to be torture are a fringe of people at the extreme right of the US political spectrum. The "controversy" does not exist anywhere else than in the USA (assuming that it genuinally does exist even there). Per WP:UNDUE, this is a non-issue.
3. That all techniques might possibly not constitute actual torture is irrelevant. Waterboarding does constitute torture. Several of the "techniques" used in Guantanamo are acknowledged to amount to torture if used in combination or for prolonged amounts of time, which they were. The number of detainees killed under US custody is a testimony to the nature of the "techniques" and the extend to which they were used.
4. Incidents in detentions facilities at Bagram and Abu Ghraib, matching the "techniques" condoned by the Torture Memos, indicate that a culture of torturing detainees was widespread among US troops at the time. Ample examples are provided in books like The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against al Qaeda, where occurrences of sleep depravation and stress positions are reported. Rama (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rama: Thank you for your thoughts. The term "torture" is a legal determination. What you have done is created a pardigm whereby you get to state some things were torture because waterboarding was torture, and was used on three individuals. because waterboarding is torture, and waterboarding was used on three individuals (for seconds or hours, it doesn't really matter), we must jump to the unsupported conclusion that all techniques in enhanced interrogation were therefore torture. I take serious issue with your logic, I also take serious issue with the "spin" you have created as evidenced by your statements above.

Let me show you an example of what this gets us when we switch around some terms - Terrorists cut heads off of defenseless prisoners. The techniques used by terrorists include cutting heads of defenseless prisoners, and it has become an accepted practice because we have videos of at least three people getting their heads cut off with blunt knives as shown on video. This is almost universally regarded as torture, except those who are at the extreme right frings of Muslim culture. Thus, all techniques used by terrorists in holding defenseless prisoners are torture, because they have cut the heads off of defenseless prisoners, and they condone this practice. Does this make logical sense? No. What we can say neutrally as "fact" is that some prisoners have had their heads cut off, while others have been released without having their heads cut off and have been treated humanely. The acts of cutting off people's heads are torture, while the acts in treating other people humanely is not rorture. One runs into problems, you see, when one uses too broad a brush. One is based on biased opinion, while the other is based on actual facts.

Thus, we have to split this article into actual documented facts, and get rid of the broad brush. Not doing so makes you just as bad as the people you conveniently label as "a fringe of people at the extreme right of the US political spectrum" who you would probably also label as being anti-Muslim, and who might think all Muslims support people's heads being cut off with dull knives because Terrorists are Muslims, and they cut people's heads off with dull knives. You are simply speaking from the other extreme of the political spectrum. Middle ground, you see, must be reached in order to achieve neutrality lest prejudice creep into the article. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Beheading is not a method of torture, it is a method of execution. As you said, there are definitions of torture. Doing so in a particular way might also constitute torture, but beheading in itself is not torture. Islamist terrorist groups nevertheless use beheading in a particularly cruel manner, and furthermore use other methods that are clearly torture. I will therefore say that these groups torture, even if they also do other things.

A number of so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture, notably including waterboarding; but other "techniques" were common, most notably beating, hypothermia and dogs.

"Stating facts", as you say, entails giving different points of views their legitimate weight. That the "Enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture is an opinion held more or less unanimously in all countries except of the USA, in which a small minority of the extreme right end of the political spectrum is fighting a rear-guard battle on the subject. Wikipedia is not USA-pedia, much less Conservapedia. The opinion that "Enhanced interrogation techniques" do not constitute torture must be given its weight: there are more people in the world who think that the US government were behind the attacks of the 11th of September. Waterboarding, hypothermia, beatings, lit cigarettes in the ears, bitting by dogs, sleep deprivation, medical aid deprivation etc. not amounting to torture is an opinion of negligeable importance. Rama (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Wikipedia is also not "vent your spleenopedia", which is why we are asked to assume good faith. I note your arguments. A majority of Americans think angels exist as well. Because a majority of Americans think angels exist, can we now come to the conclusion that they actually exist without evidence because a majority of Americans think they exist? Fact and perception by majority are not always the same thing. if the US government was behind these attacks, why not wipe out a building in Gary, Indiana? Why the Pentagon and Manhattan? Kansas perhaps? Interesting theory by a frings, but a fringe theory it remains ebcause it flies in the face of common sense.

Playing music and sleep deprivation are not torture, unless you take them to such extremes that they causes medical or psyhcological harm. Hypothermia is torture, but you are now asking us to believe temperatures were lowered to a level that would cause hypothermia, which is absurd conjecture. Has it ever occurred to you that 50 degreees F is "cold" for someone from a desert climate, but not for someone from Alaska? Does it lead to hypothermia? No, unless you leave them in the cell so long they suffer from it. And pray tell who got hypothermia from this technique? Your other points are somewhat mystifying, mainly because they were not part of the approved methods described in the article. Burning cigarettes, beatings, biting by dogs, etc, appear to have been taken from the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and then argued as somehow being a "sanctioned" acitivity based upon non-existent techniques and as the "norm" based on that incident. The guards were from Cumberland, Maryland, Rama. Has it ever occurred to you that the mountain men would do this simply because they could, and the targets were foreigners in a war zone? Has something this obvious escaped all of your grasps? That if you do not take an active role in supervising prison guards, particularly from Appalachia, they do things like this because they would simply view it as fun?

In conclusion, you are pointing to items that either are not approved techniques as tehniques because they happened, or you are asking to assume that they went to such a degree as to constitute torture without evidence. You have to reach a middle ground, your characterization of neutrality as "a small minority of the extreme right end of the political spectrum is fighting a rear-guard battle on the subject" to objectify your perceived ideological opponents notwithstanding. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We consider the world-wide view on the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", the view, that you defend is only shared by an extremist minority in a specific part of the world. It is not representative. Still, the question remains: where are your (reliable third-party) sources for your claims?

It is simply not true that this is a "extremist minority". One third of Americans think waterboarding is not torture, which is about 100 million people, hardly a fringe viewpoint. What is the view of people outside of the US? We don't know because a worldwide poll of all humanity hasn't been done. So we don't know what the "world-wide view" is, or at least there has been no source for this identified in the discussion. Remember that the UN doesn't speak for the world's people, and human rights activist groups that lobby for detainees (Amnesty Intntl, HRW, HRF, PFH, ACLU, ICRC) are representative of just one political faction, the left leaning liberal minded perspective, and several of them tend to have a largely Western European political bias against US foreign policy. In general, right-leaning political persons view EIT as not torture at all (or else only waterboarding) and left-leaning persons view it as torture or nearly torture. So the issue remains controversial and the article should simply describe what occurs in EIT and let readers decide for themselves whether they consider it torture or not. It is inappropriate and POV for a wikipedia article to declare that something is an evil practice by using moralizing, subjective terminology. Walterego (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1) I would like to see the source of "one third"

2) This third is irrelevant: we consider authorised opinions, not those of peasants. The question is not whether a bunch of clones of Homer Simpson think this or that, but that experts of the domain, in the whole world, think of the matter.

3) You probably mean one third of USAyans, which amounts to about 1.5% of the population of the world. This is not Conservapedia, we are not USA-centred. 1.5% is a tiny minority.

Your personal opinion and assessment of other people's opinions are irrelevant. The fact is that if you remove irrelevant people (you and me, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), if you remove the people directly involved in the matter (Gonzales, Addington, Feith, etc.), you are left with people who pretty much unanimously assess the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" t obe torture. Saying anything less is WP:peacock, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Rama (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1) I can provide several sources. The original I spoke of was a 2007 CNN poll, in which 29% said waterboarding was not torture, & 69% said it was (and 40% thought it should be legal for the govt to use)- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/11/06/Poll-Waterboarding-is-a-form-of-torture/UPI-51091194386730/ A more recent 2009 NYT poll showed nearly the same result, with 26% saying waterboarding was not torture & 71% saying waterboarding was torture (the drop from 29-26 may be due to the NYT defining waterboarding as including "dunking" someone in water, I do not believe that complete immersion is typically part of waterboarding as I understand it).- http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-obama-s-100th-day-in-office#p=19 Lastly, also relevant is a 2009 Gallup poll that says that 55% of Americans believe in retrospect that the use of the harsh interrogation techniques (the survey asked about EIT overall, rather than just specifically waterboarding) was justified, while only 36% say it was not.- http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx Walterego (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2)Referring to the general population as "peasants" and saying that only "expert" opinion is relevant is an absurdly elitist comment. You must be kidding. One may as well say that the opinion of brown-skinned people is irrelevant. If one is informed about what waterboarding is, then one is sufficiently expert in it. You and I are certainly just as well informed about what waterboarding is or is not as would be a representative of Amnesty International. If we remove everyone except left-leaning detainee advocacy groups, then what is the point? We could just as well remove every source except for Dick Cheney and declare waterboarding to just fine. Human rights groups represent one perspective on prisoner treatment, the other perspective comes from security/govt officials and the people who put them in office, and you're basically saying we should discount that entire perspective, which violates WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Walterego (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3) I don't know what USAayans are. Please avoid jargon and use plain english in this article so I can understand you. I believe I get your point that 1.5% of the world is a small number. However what do the other 98.5% think? How many people in the entire world's population think waterboarding is torture? Neither of us have any idea, unless there is some poll of every single country on earth that you're aware of. Thus far I have seen only polls of Americans about waterboarding, so my point that approximately 100 million Americans are not a fringe opinion stands.Walterego (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remember once again, that there are numerous relevant sources presented in the article, that label the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" methods of torture. If there is anyone, that wishes to challenge this viewpoint, I expect him to present his reliable third-party sources, that support the claim, that the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" don't constitute a collection of torture methods and that this claim is more than a fringe view. So far only the crickets are chirping. Larkusix (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I provided 3rd party sources above, polls from Gallup, New York Times, and CNN, established rather clearly that this is not a fringe view. A majority of Americans polled said that EIT was "justified", although that Gallup poll did not ask whether EIT was torture or a collection of torture techniques. Also note that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons (sourced in article opening) did not find EIT to be torture, they only found waterboarding to be torture, whereas the rest of EIT were not called torture.Walterego (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the Nazi stuff. Top billing is being given to little more than a coincidence in terminology. Tyuia (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts with only nine edits in mainspace shouldn't be removing reliably sourced content attributed to academic historians and journal articles. Restored. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Biased Heading

Referring to the title of the work itself as being a euphemism for torture is not neutral or unbiased by any standard. There is a political dispute as to whether or not it is torture, and asserting that it is is biased and irresponsible. JEN9841 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not biased, but what the overwhelming majority of the sources claims. Larkusix (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority is not always right, Larkusix, and this does not justify the assertions made in the lede. The controversy should be stated, not ignored. JEN9841 (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "controversy" exists withing a fringe of the extreme USAyan right-wing. Wikipedia is neither USApedia, not Conservatopedia, and its NPOV policy dictates that undue weight cannot be given to fringe opinions. In the world, the notion that the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are not torture have currency amongst a tiny minority of people, probably smaller than those who have "alternative theories" about the attacks of 2001 in New York. Accepting that the existence of this fringe constitutes a serious challenge to the commonly held perspective thus constitutes WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. Rama (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet would it not be just as believable to state the "controvery" attempting to label all of this as "torture" comes from the fringe of the extreme anti-USA left-wing? Placing convenient labels on your philosophical opponets to marginalize their opinion in favor of your own POV, and to thereby minimize their good faith is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So show your WP:RS. Larkusix (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one making the underlying argument, Lark, nor is this a source issue. This comes down to POV. Read Jen's response below, which gives an excellent summation of what an article is "suppsoed" to be. It is not an opinion piece, it simply explains what "is." It leaves it to the reader to come up with his own conclusion. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear JEN9841, if you refer to the talk page, then please engange in discussion here, too. 84.189.32.46 (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not conservative by any measure, though I do think this page has serious problems with bias. I have absolutely no problem citing everyone who thinks EIT is torture, but merely asserting "EIT is a euphemism for torture" in the first sentence of the article is not acceptable. The next paragraph makes a list of all the prominent organizations who think it is torture, and this is acceptable as organizations are named and references cited and given. If something is stated as undisputed fact, then in reality it should be undisputed fact. Lets leave it to giving an unbiased description of what EIT is, and then going on to discuss the controversy. JEN9841 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is ever undisputed. That is why we have WP:UNDUE.

Some people have been caught red-handed involved in torture, and are now making as huge a rear-guard fuss as they can do -- which in the case of Dick Cheney turns out to be not very big a fuss. Torturers attempting to confuse the issue or excuse their behaviour is extremely common; you see such behaviour with French paratroopers of the Algerian War, people from the Pinochet era, from South Africa, from Israel, etc. Yet noone in his right mind would call torture under Pinochet a debated issue.

The only reason why we have these constant violations of WP:UNDUE on this precise subject is because it concerns the USA, and many users coming from the USA have thus a distorted vision of the matter. If the USAyan contributors of this page read more British press, for instance, they would have a more accurate picture of the problem. For the most vocal opponents to WP:UNDUE on this page, reading anything else than Fox News and Free Republic would be a good start. Rama (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to add the word torture to the article title

It is now blatantly obvious that the so called "Enhanced interrogation techniques" should be labeled as torture. This should be reflected in the title of the article. My suggestion is:

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture)

or

Torture ("Enhanced interrogation techniques") MaxPont (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. The reason is simple - not all techniques are considered torture, even by its critics. This would violate POV. Just leave the title as is and let the reader form his or her own conclusions.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Only one technique is often called torture, and a sizable portion of people, too many to be dismissed as a "fringe" minority viewpoint, do not even consider waterboarding to be genuine physical torture. The rest of the techniques are not torture unless perhaps taken to an extreme prohibited by the very guidelines which created the techniques of harsh interrogation to begin with. For example freezing a prisoner to death would be torture, whereas keeping them in a cold cell is not torture to any objective person. Walterego (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, anything that is not physical torture needs to have the word "psychological" modifying the term torture, because when we simply say torture the implication is that pain and physical harm is being caused. Psychological torture needs to be properly qualified. Walterego (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that hypothermia was widely used as a torture device by US personel in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo. This "technique" very obviously has the blessing of the hierachy at the very least.

What you say amounts to excuse torture if it is not ordered officially, in writing; by these standards, the French Army never tortured anybody in Algeria, and the many disappearances and abuses during the Algerian war are the deeds of isolated "bad apples" in spite of the pattern of systematic torture. It simply isn't so, and it is incompatible with several Wikipedia policies.

See Torture and Democracy [37] for an authoritative account. Rama (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to this article. Walterego repeats serious misconceptions above.

1. Walterego acknowledges that freezing a captive to death would constitute torture. Murder too I suggest. But Walterego asserts this did not happen. This is incorrect. At least three captives of the USA did freeze to death:
   • Nagem Hatab in Iraq froze to death, when he was hosed down stripped naked, and left out on a cold night. He was taken in to custody for selling an M-16 at a bazaar, lost during the firefight where Jessica Lynch was wounded. His captors believed that since the M-16 passed through his hands he played a role in raping her. (Note: She now reports she has no memory of being raped. And it is hard to figure out when this rape could have occurred because only a few hours passed between the car crash that knocked her unconscious and her arrival in the civilian Iraqi hospital where staff were extremely kind to her.)
   • a militia-man held in a Forward Operating Base in Khost, staffed by a small squad of Special Forces froze to death. This militiaman was loyal to Pacha Khan Zadran during a period of time when he was considered a "renegade". This militiaman's entire squad was taken into custody by the US special forces soldiers, and were all beaten, soaked down, and left out in the snow. PKZ, now a member of the Afghan legislature, was never considered an ally of the Taliban.
   • And a newly introduced captive in "the salt pit" froze to death, again after being soaked down and exposed to freezing cold, on his very first night in custody.
2. Shackling a captives' wrists to the ceiling, for days on end, clearly rises to "pain equivalent to that of death or organ failure" measure in the Yoo Bybee memos because some of the captives subjected to this technique died of it. Shackling hooded captives' wrists to the ceiling, and administering beatings to them, was routine in Bagram in 2002. All captives who passed through Bagram experienced this -- even children and the seriously wounded.
3. Susan Crawford, the official in charge of the Office of Military Commissions, would not formalize the charges against Mohammed Al Qahtani because he had been tortured in Guantanamo. This senior Bush appointee explicitly used the word torture. Al Qahtani wasn't waterboarded. He was subjected to 58 days of sleep deprivation and stress positions. Medical personnel administered intravenous supplements, force-feeding, enemas, to keep his body going during those 58 days. His blood pressure and pulse dropped dangerously low, because the sleep deprivation and stress positions were literally killing him. Bush appointee Susan Crawford was absolutely correct to call this torture. It was torture even by the Yoo/Bybee standard.

I think I prefer sticking to the current article title, but for other reasons than those who dispute that these techniques are considered torture by serious commentators. It is best to supply the facts and let our readers reach their own conclusions as to whether or not these techniques constituted torture. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of those reasons for calling EIT torture has problems. The main one is that to call it such requires not only that it be torture, but it also has to be on the list of techniques, which is what this article purports to be about. That means it has to have been used in accordance with the allowed procedures. If it's not part of the EIT then it may go into one of the other torture articles but it doesn't belong here.

I agree that letting readers reach their own conclusions is best. We also have statements from Amnesty, HRW, etc. I don't see why Wikipedia needs to state its own official opinion.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Geo stop wasting your time, people like randy and walterego support torture and will happily delete any negative stimuli that does not fit their world view. Facts or no facts. It does not matter how many people have been tortured to death by american forces they deserved it even the children. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could say the same for you Hypnosadist, that you will ignore opposing viewpoints and delete any conflicting info that doesn't fit your political bias, if you can't bear to read civilized debate with Randy or myself. Plus, you're resorting to outright falsehoods when you imply that little children have been tortured by the US, and making an ad hominym attack by saying that I would justify the actual torture of kids.Walterego (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

KSM's children were "insected" as you americans would call it by the PIA while he was in CIA custody, the torture of children only works by the parent giving up info to protect there children. To do that he has to know whats happening to them. I bet you wrote a letter to your congressman to complain about america being involved in such things, of course not KSM deserved it. Plus many 14-17 year olds have been through Bagram and the salt pit and gitmo. All subjected to the abuse that is standard at these places. All of them deserved it as far as you are concerned. You justify this torture by the belief that all these deaths are some how not americas fault because the torture was not done according to some memo (it was done by americans for america with the authorisation of POTUS). So yes you actively support the torture of people including children, don't like that well try being tortured its much much worse. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. KSM's children were never "insected", that's just another myth from people trying to slur the US with lies. Even if they had been mistreated by the Pakistani Intel (called the ISI, not PIA) then that would be the ISI doing that, not the CIA. There is no evidence whatsoever of the CIA doing that or telling the ISI to do that. 2. Teenage combatants may well have passed through Bagram/gitmo, but teenagers are not children, they are young adults - a 17 year old, particularly one that is participating in combat, is not a mere child. I am not aware of an instance of a teenager being tortured or subject to harsh interrogation, and you haven't provided such an example, you are just dealing in slanderous generalizations. So no I do not support the torture of people especially children, obviously. For you to presume that you're morally superior to me is just a false conceit and rather arrogant.Walterego (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Majid Khan's affidavit contains an account of KSM's children, aged 6 and 8, being interrogated while having insects crawl over them. Mind you, this was before KSM was captured. The account is not first hand, or even second hand. But, we do know that his children disappeared. This is the last time we knew where they were. Aafia Siddiqui's children were captured with her, and disappeared. We still don't know where the youngest two are.

Your claim that the minors who were held in Bagram weren't subjected to harsh interrogation is wishful thinking. They all were, even the very youngest captives, the three who received humane treatment in Camp Iguana, the three who were taught to read, and got to play video games, and play soccer, with their friendly guards, reported harsh treatment while enjoying US hospitality in Afghanistan.

Please don't repeat the now demolished claim that the captives were all "participating in combat" or "captured on a battlefield". This wildly untrue, is simply not supported by the DoD own documents. At most a few dozen were "captured on a battlefield". And a fair reading of the documents would suggest to a fair minded reader that a large fraction of those captives were not "participating in combat" -- they were merely innocent bystanders. Geo Swan (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The account about KSM's children is tainted in another way. It's actually what the Pakistani guards had told them. While it doesn't go against the stereotype of Pakistani guards, it is more than reasonable to believe that they could make up that story to compel the adult prisoners to give in. A deception that, by informing on them, they'd be making life easier for their comrades is itself an interrogation technique.

But regardless, it still doesn't make it an official interrogation technique by the CIA. It's not even a matter of rendition, as the CIA didn't yet have custody.

There's a world of difference between "participating in combat" and "innocent bystanders".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the extent to your misperceptions of my views is that extreme then it's no surprise that you fail to see a difference between an iron maiden and a slap in the face.

It may be that some EITs, when performed as authorized, are still torture under the legal definition but you're not the judge of that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor, I believe it is Geoswan, asserts that "three captives of the USA did freeze to death" as a result of harsh interrogation. This is incorrect. 1. Nagem Hatab did not freeze to death, he died due to a broken bone in his larynx which occurred due to his being dragged roughly by his guards. The senior officer in charge was court martialled for dereliction of duty and maltreatment as a result. I can't find a link to the vaguely referenced "militiaman" of PKZ, but there was great hatred between US Specops soldiers and PKZ's forces, as the latter were firing on US forces and terrorizing the local afghan population. Maltreatment of militiamen detainees was unethical but natural given the mutual hostility, that has nothing to do with EIT type interrogation. Most detainee maltreatment has nothing to do with harsh interrogation, it is simply soldiers allowing their personal emotions to override their moral compass and GC compliance. Call it "bad apples" or natural human behavior in war or proclaim them monsters, it has nothing to do with EIT. The 3rd example from the Salt Pit is the only one which was part of interrogation, and that death occurred because the CIA officer was inexperienced and didn't know how to do EIT properly, which by definition means that he shouldn't physically harm the detainee. Obviously if one does waterboarding completely wrong and drowns the detainee or freezes him then one has acted unlawfully/torturously, but this has nothing to do with whether EIT as authorized is torture. Fortunately these incidents are rare, as here only a single occurrence (the salt pit case) is cited rather than three. 2. Beatings are not part of EIT. Shackling a person so that they are forced to stand is, but that has never killed anyone. It is incorrect that the two detainees who died at Bagram, Dilwar and Habbibullah, died of shakling. They died because of beatings. 3. Al Qaeda combatant Al Qahtani's treatment was described by Susan Crawford as torture because it had a physical medical impact due to it being performed overly aggressively. She said "It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture. So her standard is somewhat consistent with the Yoo standard, that EIT is not torture provided it does not medically harm the combatant, which is what I was trying to say above. Anything done to excess can be torture, the issue is whether the technique(s) itself is (are) torture even when done as prescribed.Walterego (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Walterego, I have moved this comment of yours to after my comment, rather than in the middle of it, to prevent confusing other readers. You cut off my final paragraph from the paragraphs that preceded it. I took the position that while some WP:RS are prepared to call the techniques torture, whether they are or aren't is disputed, and so including torture in the title is a mistake. You overlooked this. And by th position of your comment, you -- no doubt unintentionally -- misrepresented my position.

• Here is a link to an account of the interrogation and death of the PKZ militiaman. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Craig Pyes, Kevin Sack (2006-09-25). "Two Deaths Were a 'Clue That Something's Wrong': A Special Forces team in Afghanistan failed to alert its superiors. Witnesses tell of torture". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
• You seem to have taken the position that waterboarding isn't necessarily torture "if done properly".
• Concerning the deaths in Bagram -- which inflicted pain that couldn't come any closer to the pain of dying -- as those two captives actually died. Yes, they were exposed to "stress positions". You assert that it wasn't part of their interrogations. You are simply incorrect. You assert that the beatings weren't authorized. All the GIs involved said they were told by their superiors that they were authorized to give captives "peroneal knee strikes". This was standard procedure for all captives who passed through Bagram. All new captives were isolated from other captives, shackled to the ceiling, kept hooded to keep them disoriented, and passing soldiers thought they were authorized to give the captives these peroneal strikes as part of a "softening up" that was part of their interrogation. The soldiers didn't call the knee strikes beatings. They called them a "control measure".
• What namby-pamby editorial writers warned about back in 2002 and 2003 was that there was no way special interrogation techniques could stay isolated to just a small group of interrogators and a small group of interrogation subjects. And now that some of the documents are being published I think it is crystal clear that those annoying card-carrying liberals predictions were one hundred percent correct.
• Back in 2004 Guantanamo captive 761 Ibrahim Zeidan testified about something that is pretty surprising during his 2004 CSR Tribunal. He claimed the allegations against him were due to false denunciations. Why did he think he had been false denunciations? He testified to his Tribunal, back in 2004 that he and his fellow captives knew that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. How did he know this? (1) Interrogators bragged about his torture; (2) some of his fellow captives were shown images of Abu Zubaydah being tortured. He testified: "They saw the marks of torture on his body."
• Yes, I know, bad news from the captives is routinely discounted based on claims that al Qaida operatives had been trained to lie about torture. But that claim is not usable in this case. Abu Zubaydah wasn't held in Guantanamo. He was in secret CIA custody. The CIA withheld from the Congress and the American public that they were using waterboarding. The CIA flat out lied about whether they had recorded Abu Zubaydah's interrogation. It wasn't until December 2007 that DCI Michael Hayden acknowledged that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded, and that those interrogation sessions had been recorded. Then it was revealed that those tapes had been destroyed in 2005.
• So, the existence of the tapes was withheld from Congress, Congress wasn't allowed to see the images. But random interrogators had access to the tapes.
• Do you remember the explanation DCI Hayden offered for why the recordings had been made? He said they had been made "for training purposes". Training purposes? From Zeidan's account it sounds like the "training" was aimed at other captives -- who were shown the tapes to train them to talk, by showing them exactly how far American interrogators were prepared to go to get answers.
• WRT to Susan Crawford's comments on Mohammed Al Qahtani's torture. During his 58 days of sleep deprivation his interrogators had to call upon medical personnel when his blood pressure and pulse fell dangerously low. So, yes, he was experiencing pain equivalent to dying, because the procedures brought him to a state where he may have died without medical intervention. And this was true of all Bagram captives. Medical personnel came in to check to see if those interrogation subjects were truly dying. So their experience amounted to torture under the Yoo/Bybee measure.
• You referred to these incidents as "rare". I too would hope they are rare. But we don't know that they are rare. We know reports of these incidents are rare. But we don't know the extent to which this is because the incidents are, in fact, rare, and the extent to which they are simply hushed up, and underreported.
• The officer in charge of the Bagram interrogations in December 2002, when Dilawaar and Habibullah died while under her authority, was a mustang, a former NCO, Carolyn Wood. When a post mortem had already concluded that Habibullah died due to the use of techniques she authorized, why didn't she order her troops to stop using those techniques? We don't know. Even though the Fay-Jones inquiry recommended that her superiors consider charging her. She was not charged. She also played a central role in the Abu Ghraib photo scandal. Why wasn't she charged? Wood's superiors had already promoted her, and awarded her two Bronze Stars. I would be very interested in reading the actual description of why she was awarded these two bronze stars. What I suspect is that the activities she was awarded the Bronze Stars for where the same activities the Generals conducting the inquiries felt she should face charges for.
• So, how much endorsement did Wood's superiors give her? How authorized were her use of extended techniques? Well, guess what her next assignment was after Abu Ghraib? She was sent to teach interrogation techniques at Fort Huachaco -- the US Army's intelligence school. No, I am not making this up. I suggest other interrogators are likely to have seen her promotions, her medals, and her appointment as an instructor in interrogation techniques as a very strong signal that her use of extended techniques was authorized and endorsed. I suspect that her superiors were reluctant to lay charges against her for the same actions they had cited when awarded her medals.
• I am going to return to your apparent comment that waterboarding is not torture, "if done properly". I am going to invite you to clarify this, if you mispoke. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the specific ten methods that are collectively called the "Enhanced interrogation techniques". It does not need any further qualification. The article makes clear these methods constitute Torture/Cruel,inhuman,degrading treatment. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, for the reasons others have given. Oddly enough, Rama contradicts Hypnosadist here. This article is indeed about the specific list of techniques that the CIA has authorized, and that includes the limits that the CIA imposed on them. If and when the limits are exceeded then, while that may be worth noting, it's not part of the officially authorized techniques, and therefore, is not torture. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What, "oddly enough"? I can have my own opinion, thank you very much.

No can do:

• either the article discusses "enhanced interrogation technique" as a propaganda term, including its use in Nazi Germany and elsewhere and its connections to torture techniques actually used, that would have their own articles;
• or it discusses what actually happened.

Wikipedia policy does not allow an article to simply parrot the propaganda of a given government in contradiction of all facts. The "torture memos" describe watered-down versions of the tortures used at length in places like Guantanamo, where "abuses" have not been systematically investigated and prevented, but encouraged and protected from scrutiny.

This case is very much a parallel to the French practices in Algeria. Wikipedia does mention that the French used torture in Algeria, it does not parrot the propaganda of the French government of the time. There is no reason to do any differently with the Bush administration. Rama (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this subject is related to the French conflict in Algeria is a real stretch. Perhaps it seems that way to you because you're french, but as someone who isn't french I don't see much similarity at all. That was a war concerning a colonial occupation, whereas this subject has to do with terrorists from abroad attacking the US and US interests/allies abroad. It's apples and oranges. Probably a Briton would see parallels with their conflict in Northern Ireland, a German see parallels with the Badermeinhoff gang, and so forth. But the connection between France's Algeria war and the US-Jihadi terrorist war (aka War on Terror according to Bush admin) escapes me. The FLN wasn't even Jihadist.Walterego (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was about the U.S. use of enhanced interrogation techniques. It can't be a "propaganda term" if its use was meant to be secret. And if it's "watered-down" then that is an acknowledgement that it's not quite real torture.

To say that this has "not been systematically investigated" is amusing. Those very CIA memos show that a great deal of thought went into determining where the line should be drawn, and then there were so many investigations after the fact.

The parallels to Nazi Germany are contrived nonsense. As said below, they're based on some columnist drawing connections. That would be a SYNTH violation if we did it. I see no reason why it's suddenly valid if some obviously biased person like Scott Horton says it. As you say, we don't "simply parrot the propaganda of a given government." Likewise, we shouldn't simply parrot biased non-government loons either.

The most obvious parallel to the French in Algeria is that the leftists back then were also rather boastful about their claimed "opposition" to torture while, at the same time, very quick to turn a blind eye whenever their friends used torture. Some things never change.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"It can't be a "propaganda term" if its use was meant to be secret." Depends who its ment to propagandise, but it would be more accurate to call it a politically correct term or just a simple euphemism. But that does not matter, EIT is the name given to these 10 methods as a group, if really needed quotes could be put round EIT but thats as far as it should go. Rama i think this article should discuss both the options you gave. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Randy, but Horton is not "some columnist". See his biography.

Yes, in Algeria too, the military who tortured were obsessed by the Communists, just like you are; "do wou want Mers-el-Kebir to be a Soviet naval base in a few years" was a common leitmotiv. Actualyl, I believe that many French torturers genuially believed that the FLN was a tool of the Eastern block, and were really surprised when that turned out to be completely wrong, which would set yet another parallel, that of fundamentally misunderstanding the ennemy out of intellectual rigidness and lazyness. But these considerations are quite irrelevant here. Rama (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring the real point about Algeria, which was that the critics who claimed to "oppose" torture were only willing to speak out when their allies were being interrogated. They always condone torture when it's in their interest. It was no different then than it is now. But on your side issue about Algeria, the Soviets did mark a presence in the region with port calls and anchorages. That they failed to build a base is another topic. Even so, it's irrelevant to your point. After the French withdrew, Algeria's model for "human rights" was no different than any other communist endeavor.

And yes, Horton is a lawyer as well as a defender of GTMO detainees. It doesn't change his track record as an absurd ideologue. Perhaps he'd have more credibility if members of the Bush administration actually were hauled off to some international "court" but that's only going to happen in his dreams.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And your ignoring that this talk page is not for chat but for talking about the content of this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested origin of legal opinions

I read the section, then looked at the sources. I see an attempted parallel, but I fail to see where it was shown to have originated with Strauss. Can anyone show me where this is actually stated? It looks like the sources are opinion pieces, but they do not support this premise. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I had deleted this section earlier, and it was mysteriously restored. I have removed it again. This section is speculative, violates POV, and is not supported by the sources. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we do some work please

Stop the pointless chat or GTFO, these pissing contests over histories not covered in this article are worse than useless, they are distracting from writing this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from the lead about Canada because the references do not support the strong and unambiguous wording, much less its prominent placement. There was an internal document leaked to the press; some officials discussed where there is a risk of being tortured. It was not because EIT was used on Khadr (if it even was), but that he claimed to have been tortured, which means they considered the possibility that he could have been. This is a far cry from an official published document listing the U.S. as torturing. 24.21.244.159 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• I would suggest that both sides attemnpt to keep the lead neutral, and I have edited the lead to achieve that result while not touching the portion substantively on criticism. I would also suggest it be used to describe the article, and the quotes and other materials removed and placed into the body of the article. I would like to reach a consensus on this issue. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Your version deliberately refrains from naming the main feature of the subject of the article. This is incompatible with a wide range of Wikipedia policies. Rama (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Name these policies, and we will deal with each such policy in turn. I will also take this time to tell you to stop edit warring with me. If you would like to make a change, please discuss any such change in an effort to reach a consensus as required by Wikipedia "policy" as you state. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed repeatedly to sources, many of them in the article, that support the claims made in the lede. If you have other reliable, third party sources that contest these claims, please provide them. Larkusix (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a WP guideline for how to use bold MOS:BOLD in the lead section. Use bold for ”proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms”. IMO, it is blatantly obvious that torture is a proper name and common term in this article. MaxPont (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Not all the sources (specifically 5&6) support the claim made in the lede that EIT techniques are torture, since the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee declared waterboarding alone to be torture. Page 24-25 of the report stated that waterboarding was the one exception to the Bush admin's assertion that it does not torture. "There is one exception to this general approach, which is the attitude of the British Government to the practice known as “water-boarding”....David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has said: “I consider that water-boarding amounts to torture”. Lord Malloch-Brown told us that there is “no ambiguity” about the Government’s view.83 We asked him if he was aware of any other practices carried out by the US Government that the UK would consider torture. An official replied that the Government was aware “of the variety of techniques that have been discussed in the US”, but Lord Malloch-Brown said he was not aware of any other methods that would be viewed as torture." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/533/533.pdf So since the lede proclaims EIT (plural) to be torture ("or techniques amounting to torture"- redundant phrase), and this is not the article about waterboarding, then the lede needs to have the POV declaration that all EIT are torture removed, and leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves which techniques rise above torture in their opinion. Walterego (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, here is a reliable, third party source that considers it controversial (and NPOV) to label EIT with the subjective term of torture- NPR. From the NPR Ombudsman: "not all interrogation could be classified as torture. Sleep deprivation, nudity and facial slaps are different from, say, pouring water on a cloth over someone's face for 20 to 40 seconds to create the sensation of drowning -- a practice known as waterboarding...." NPR's sensible attempt to use objective language is highly pertinent to Wikipedia's objective or presenting information in a NPOV manner: "There has been no clear consensus on what constitutes torture, noted Brian Duffy, NPR's former managing editor in late April. NPR decided to not use the term "torture" to describe techniques such as water-boarding but instead uses "harsh interrogation tactics," Duffy told me (the NPR Ombudsman). I recognize that it's frustrating for some listeners to have NPR not use the word torture to describe certain practices that seem barbaric. But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context. "I understand the desire to 'call a spade a spade,' but it is not for journalists to start labeling specific practices torture," said Duffy. "That's what the debate is about -- what constitutes torture?" To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization." - NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shephard 6/25/2009 http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html This sounds like excellent advice for wikipedia, to describe the techniques and get off the soapbox.Walterego (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What specifically is EIT

The bigger problem than the controversial issue of which techniques are torture or not, is that the subject has never been clearly defined. What are EIT? The 2008 Levin/McCain Senate report notes that the full list remains classified, but says that EIT includes several techniques which it names at various points in the report. Again there is a problem in that the techniques are not approved consistently. Techniques are permitted in Gitmo and later Afghanistan for a few months (starting in Dec 2002) and then rescinded (particularly after April 2003). In Iraq EIT is allowed for less than a month Sept-Oct 2003, then authorization is taken away for most of the techniques, however some continue for a little while without authorization due to confusion over what is permitted. 11 techniques are listed in the SERE program, but that was simply the origin of EIT, not a list of EIT used on non-US prisoners. Six techniques are listed from the ABC News link, but the link notes that only a handful of CIA interrogators are authorized to use these 6 techniques. The 2008 Senate report notes that much of the EIT used outside of Gitmo was due to techniques being passed via word of mouth and without official approval from the Bush admin, such as the use of nudity in Iraq and Afghan prisons. From reading the 2008 Levin-McCain report I see the following techniques authorized at one point or another, some of which are redundant:

1.Sleep Deprivation (kept awake & forced to stand) 2 Stress positions (forced to stand) 3.Nudity/dehumanization (made to wear animal leash, crawl) 4.Phobias (fear of dogs) 5.Sensory deprivation (hooding, earmuffs) 6.Sensory bombardment (loud noise) 7.Attention slaps 8.Environmental (cold cell) 9.Waterboarding

Some SERE techniques that were not used as EIT: Cultural & Sexual humiliation (aside from nudity). This is the extent of EIT as far as what has been released. Notice it does not include beatings (apart from light hand slaps if one chooses to call that "beating", which is a stretch). Although the 2008 Senate report called several of these techniques inhumane, none other than waterboarding have been called torture, except by activist human rights groups (and the use of frightening dogs which was called torture by the UN Committee against Torture). Walterego (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)