Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Changes to Lede

While the changes Dragongirl has authored to expand the lede seem constructive, on a topic as controversial sa this with every phrase in the article hotly debated, and debated not once but repeatedly over the course of years, it is especially important that every sentence has a footnote. Even the lede. Also three substantive problems: more than--many more than--three people were subjected to the techniques. The Senate Report, and the author McCoy, say it is in the thousands, and that hundreds died under the abuse. Also it is apparent that at places like Abu Ghraib hurting people was an end in itself, the sadistic pleasure to terrorize, to demean. The extraction of information was never actually attempted in most instances--it was an excuse, rather than the reason. The destruction of the videotapes is given far too much prominence with its oen paragraph: it is a very minor matter compared to the wholesale abrogation of international treaties and the violation of even US laws which, if enforced, mandate up to life in prison or the death penalty. So while well intentioned the changes skew the lede and disserve the article. I will not try to re-edit them until others have weighed in.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not claim that my extension of the lede created a perfect one -- considering that this seems to be a controversial topic and although i did look at the talk page i did not completely read all the numerous archives. I just tried my best to add additional information to a very short lede that previously did not mention mayor parts of the article. Everything is a process and i have no problem with the improvements you just performed. Let's keep discussion and improving it. I agree that everything should be referenced but i thought when claims are already referenced with footnotes in the section then we do not replicate these footnotes into the lede? I am also interested what other people say. Let's aim for a NPOV lede that covers all aspects of the topic. DragonGirl2012 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede's mention of a "truth commission" is 1) off the rails; and 2) way out of date. Some crazy stuff belongs in the article (simply because those who say it should never be forgotten) but it doesn't belong in the lede. There was never a chance of a real truth commission, just as there was never a chance of real trials against Bush administration officials. That was just President Obama trying to throw a bone to those supporters who pretend to oppose torture.

It's a lot like the way he said he wanted to close it but his plan was never more than to move Guantanamo to Illinois. This was never important enough to add to the lede, and it's a lot less important now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point, actually i am still thinking about that part as it seems to me unbalanced to end the lede with it. How to fix it? I am personally not sure we should remove it completely. One possible solution i thought about was to balance this by appending one or two sentence. E.g. about the HRW or AI and other groups reports (as recent as mid 2011) and criticism saying that there is "overwhelming evidence" of torture ordered by George W Bush." [1], [2], [3], [4] (Though i am not sure how to boil that down to one sentence.:)

Another thing that could balance this might be the international investigations and criminal proceedings. E.G. the one in Spain were the Wikileaks cable revealed that the Obama administration pushed the Spanish to end criminal investigation.[5] (anyway a longer story there - so no idea either how to boil that down.)

Further investigations have been started or are ongoing in other countries like Poland and other EU countries and the EU itself is looking into it. -------- I stop here because i am not sure i got the full picture yet. Anyway i guess this topic will keep boiling for many decades to come. DragonGirl2012 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the new claims mean anything more than the old ones did. You should just note what types of critics there are, and list their names in the body of the article.

You're giving them too much credit.

Groups like Amnesty and HRW need to continue to talk about the Bush administration because Bush-hatred drove a significant amount of their fundraising. They're not going to get the same dollars by whining about the Obama administration.

Where the article says "American and European officials have called 'enhanced interrogation' a euphemism for torture," what you really mean is "American and European politicians. The word "official" implies it's an official position, which it's not.

Is there actual "overwhelming evidence" of real torture? It's still an opinion of what the definition of "torture" is, and their opinions aren't worth very much.

There haven't been any definitive court rulings related to EIT. Binyam Mohamed's claim appears to be related to interrogation by Pakistanis while he was rendered there. There may be CIA responsibility but it's not about EIT.

As I said above, some of the techniques are similar to the five techniques. Courts have ruled that they're harsh, but not actual torture. Real torture is what the critics' friends are doing.

Do you remember the first year of the war, when all the critics were already claiming to oppose torture?

The U.S. government's position was that it opposes torture, too, but it wasn't using "torture." It took a couple of years for the stories and complaints to accumulate. Most of the mess at Abu Ghraib wasn't officially sanctioned, but it stained the system regardless. The same goes with the numerous other scandals that popped up along the way. We're going to have to live with those stains. It's part of American history.

What you may be missing is that the critics have a history, too. They spent the last ten years aligning with Islamists, and condoning the worst atrocities imaginable. They've spent the last ten years supporting the use of children as human shields (and that was while pretending to support the Geneva Conventions). Their fake opposition to "torture" doesn't mean anything substantive anymore. The critics need to live with that. It is part of their history.

I've said more than I'd intended. The point isn't to change your mind about anything. It's that these are still only claims, and not everyone believes that the people who claim to oppose torture are serious. It's still just an opinion no matter how much they claim to care.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

<Insert>Given the March 14, 2003 memo by John Yoo (OLC) to the General Counsel of DOD, five days before the invasion of Iraq, in which he concluded that federal laws did not apply to torture and other abuses by interrogators overseas, there was official sanction of torture from the highest levels of the administration that likely affected what happened at Abu Ghraib. It was just kept secret for years - that memo was not revealed until 2008. A bipartisan Congressional committee in 2008-2009 found that such policies did have an effect in producing the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, as cited in this article already.Parkwells (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the memo itself actually said, nor did the so-called "bipartisan" Congressional committee really intend to clarify anything. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Randy--nice to see you again, as always. Minor but important question: did President Obama rescind or retract or modify his statement about a truth commission? I have not seen it if he did. I recall him saying "in my second term;" but I recall no news reports saying he changed his mind. I ask because changing his mind on that would be very newsworthy. Even commentators on the right like David Brooks and (if I recall aright) George Will, support a truth commission. As to his sincerity, I cannot judge. But I do know Atty General Holder wanted very much to prosecute those who stepped so much as a nanometer outside the lines. Holder was quite sincere about that and argued vociferously with the President. Obama said no. Insiders (former insiders I should remark) claim it was because Obama was afraid of outright mutiny, or a work-to-the-rule, by the armed forces. Whatever the reason, Obama has been consistent in saying no prosecutions. But so far as I know he was equally consistent in saying 2nd term: Truth Commission. Please give me a cite if you know different. Best wishes, ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised you're taking his words seriously. President Obama has too much to lose from a truth commission, and very little to gain.

I don't even know what could come out of a truth commission that we don't already know. Is it that you'd just like to see Dick Cheney sweating under oath? Well, Dick Cheney's not going to be sweating at all.

I don't know about Brooks or Will, but I do know that Dick Cheney and everyone who supported this side of the war effort would enjoy a bipartisan truth commission. Judging by Jose Rodriguez's interviews, I'm guessing he would probably like nothing better, and waterboarding-advocate Nancy Pelosi would like nothing less.

Who do you think is more likely to be part of a truth commission, Taliban-supporter (and friend of the so-called "human rights" movement) Moazzam Begg or Congressman Allen West? (Put West on the commission, and they could move the hearings from C-SPAN to pay-per-view.) The Democrats could only appoint members with very safe seats.

This poll from 2009 said that most Americans opposed President Obama's release of the classified documents on interrogation methods. A greater majority didn't want any further digging. That's the kind of political environment Obama needs to contend with. He'd be guaranteed to lose the next election if there was a truth commission now. It's different for him after the election, but it's not different for the other Democrats. They will still want to run again. No Democrat with an adversarial view on a truth commission will be able to run for President in 2016.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Image caption of black dog in front of prisoner

I'm not sure "Black dog snarls near the face of an Abu Ghraib prisoner.[66]" is accurate. To me the dog looks to just be staring at the prisoner, who admittedly seems quite panic-stricken. Nonetheless "snarls" seems exaggerated. I recommend removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.242.4 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't belong here at all. It wouldn't belong even if the dog was snarling.

Unmuzzled dogs were on the DoD's list of Guantanamo interrogation methods for about six weeks. They were removed before the war in Iraq began.

Dog muzzles in Abu Ghraib were removed by order of a Lt.Col(iirc) at Abu Ghraib who didn't know it violated the DoD's rules. He was charged for it, and had to pay a substantial fine.

This isn't the only deceptive thing about this article. Sometimes it's best to leave the obviously deceptive stuff alone, but I'm removing this one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I must respectfully differ. The picture is sourced, and cited. So it meets Wikipedia's notability standard. As to its being deceptive, the comment suggests it is NOT deceptive: "unmuzzled dogs were on the DoD's list of Guantanamo interrogation methods for about six weeks." In an abundance of caution, before reverting I will await further explanation for why this is deceptive.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an article on the official sets of enhanced interrogation techniques used by the U.S. government. Unmuzzled dogs were not on that list after January 15, 2003. The picture was taken after that.

If the picture had been sourced as an enhanced interrogation technique then the source simply doesn't know what he's talking about. It is known that the 2003-2005 list of techniques didn't include dogs at all. For that matter, sleep deprivation was also removed, although this article suggests otherwise. It was substituted with sleep management (a full 8-hours of sleep, but at different times each day). Al-Qahtani was the only DoD detainee who got the "sleep deprivation" they used (which was not even in the same ballpark as the CIA's).

Note that the picture mentions Abu Ghraib. Anyone reading this, who knows the facts and the timeline, will recognize it doesn't fit.

There is a major problem with this article in the way it freely mixes CIA and DoD techniques. It's too jihad-friendly.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial complaint by the IP address editor was about the caption. Only the caption, not the photo. The subsequent photo removal was predicated on the source not knowing what he was talking about. The source was the Washington Post. It illustrated the following paragraph in the Washington Post: "A U.S Army General dispatched by senior Pentagon officials to bolster the collection of intelligence from prisoners in Iraq last fall inspired and promoted the use of guard dogs there to frighten the Iraqis . . . " We Wikipedia editors must have the humility not to substitute our opinions for the published sources on which Wikipedia must depend. The photo did occur too early on the page: it properly belongs lower down, in the DoD section. This will take care of any possible confusion between DoD and CIA abuses. Accordingly I will put it in the DoD section, and I will give it the original caption the Washington Post gave it, with a link to that article.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Other than my pointing to a Lt.Col(and I added, "iirc"), when it was really a full Col., nothing in that source conflicts with what I've said. Read it closely: by looking to blame either Maj.Gen. Miller or Col. Pappas, they acknowledge that it's not an authorized EIT.

Again, this is an article on enhanced interrogation techniques, which are described in the lede as, "Enhanced interrogation techniques or alternative set of procedures are terms the George W. Bush administration used for certain torture methods including hypothermia, stress positions and waterboarding."

Ignoring the misplaced prominence of the lede's torture claims, you'll notice that this article is about official techniques of the CIA and DoD. Your source (written in 2004, before more of the facts came out) addresses the abuse of methods that were not approved by the Bush administration as enhanced interrogation techniques. We already have an article on the abuse at Abu Ghraib. We really do need one on enhanced interrogation techniques so that readers can find out what those techniques actually were.

If they read this article as it is, WP readers may wonder why a major general was disciplined and forced to retire over methods that this article wrongly suggests were approved by Rumsfeld. I don't know why that doesn't bother anyone.

We could just as well dive into wiki-commons and find a picture of a crossdresser to illustrate this section of the article. It would be more valid than the Abu Ghraib dog photo, and would have the added benefit that readers are less likely to be fooled into wrongly believing it was approved as an EIT at Abu Ghraib.

BTW: That's not the only place where CIA and DoD techniques are confused. The next two sections, "Initial reports and complaints" and "Public positions and reactions," either switch back and forth too often or don't clarify which sets of techniques it's talking about. Much of the article looks as though people didn't care whether the readers understand what actually happened. That might have been more understandable when people had partisan interests, but some of that should have ended in 2009.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider syntactical revision

"In 2009 both President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder stated certain of the techniques are torture, and repudiated their use"

To me, this sentence lacks grammatical sense; especially: "stated certain of the techniques are torture"

Consider revising to something like this: "In 2009, both President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder stated that certain elements of the techniques were considered torture in their minds, and repudiated their use" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but that suggested rewording is not supported by the two sources in the footnote. Pres. Obama said the techniques "amount to torture." Atty. Gen. Holder said "waterboarding is torture." There was no "in their minds;" no suggestion that it is simply their own opinion. Anybody who engages in waterboarding now would be subject to prosecution under the law.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was illegal since the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Holder was grandstanding for the benefit of those who pretend to oppose torture.

We should be careful not to confuse political posturing with facts.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Panetta Review

The Panetta Review and surrounding controversy needs to be integrated into this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia article on the Panetta review maybe. But the Panetta review itself remains classified: we don't know what was in it. All we know is the CIA tried to keep it away from Senate staffers working on the Senate Report--which is also still classified. I understand they are declassifying some. Once it comes out, that Senate report should be in the article, which would be the right place to refer to the Panetta report as a source for the Report (or not a source, depending). Randy, what do you think?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree we'll have to wait and see what comes out of it. Right now, there's barely enough for the Panetta Review to have its own article. Half of it is about the accusations that the CIA monitored which files the Senate investigators were looking at. That may or may not be interesting, but it's a completely different controversy. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Term or euphamism?

An editor has in good faith substituted the word term for the word euphamism in the lede. I am reverting: national news sources say euphamism. Viz: NBC News--Former CIA Director Leon Pannetta agreeing with NBC anchor Brian Williams that enhanced interrgoation is a euphamism, here The Washington Post-- former Undersecretary of State Timothy Pickering calling for an end to "resorting to euphemisms and call 'enhanced interrogation techniques' — including but not limited to waterboarding — what they actually are: torture." here The Christian Science Monitor--discussing the soon to be released bipartisan Senate Report calling enhanced interogation a euphamism for tortures far worse than previously disclosed, here One could multiply cites to New York times, Chicago Tribune, San Fransicco Chronicle, etc., but that is overkill. If there is a question about use of the word euphamism we could hang cites on it as footnotes, but I really don't think there is any longer much controversy. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Brian Williams quote, which didn't actually call it torture, was more than a casual remark. Thomas Pickering was making a moral argument, not a serious claim that the term was used by its planners as a euphemism.

And let's face it, if not to denigrate the planners as fully intending to approve torture, it's simply not worth muddying the article with the word.

CSMonitor used it more as matter of style, and it actually included the note, "that many people consider to be torture." It quotes CCR calling it torture, but there isn't a single member of CCR who wouldn't condone torture when their friends or allies do it. (I don't say that as moral argument or as a matter of style; it is quite literally true.)

The trouble with calling it a euphemism is that it implies that the people who approved or did it had done so with a wink and a nod, and a belligerant understanding that it was really torture. It will appeal to smarmy left-wing readers of the article, but it's a signal to others that these articles aren't taken seriously. And let's face it, they're not.

Calling it a euphemism throws away all the legal arguments, not just in the U.S., but for those European judges who thought the same way about the five techniques. Many called those torture, too, including other judges, but those particular judges said it was something less. People can disagree on EIT without insinuating that the administration's lawyers didn't believe what they were saying.

One can argue about how many splashes of water it takes before something legally becomes torture. It's difficult to say that one splash is torture, and that is basically what the "euphemism" crowd is doing.

That Senate report isn't going to settle anything. Only three Republicans voted to release it, at least one of whom did so while calling it biased.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Randy2063 for a thoughtful exegesis. Despite wondrous powers as a Wikipedia editor (not) I confess I haven't the power to look into somebody else's mind, to divine their intentions. I can't say whether the Bush administration officials who came up with "enhanced interrogation" did or did not intend a wink and a nod. Does it sound ironic? To me, sure, maybe not to others. The closest I can come to peering into their minds is Philip Zelikow, who was Senior Counsellor to Condoleezea Rice at the State Department and who wrote a legal memo saying yes it is torture and no we should not do it--which memo the White House ordered collected and destroyed. Jane Mayer, author of the Dark Side, quotes Zelikow as predicting that "America's descent into torture will in time be viewed like the Japanese internments," in that "(f)ear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools." If that characterization of the Bush administration in which he served is accurate, presumably zealots would wink and nod at the ironic description of torture as enhanced interrogation, while fools might actually believe renaming it makes it something different. Still, I cannot myself say that it was good faith, or bad faith. All I can say is, the news sources call it a euphamism which by Wikipedia's rather artificial standards, makes it one.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Zelikow is basically saying what I said on the matter of it not being a genuine euphemism. He really makes my point, in three different ways:

1) Whatever he may have said or meant when he spoke to Mayer, he did not say to the Guardian that he thinks it's legally torture:

"I do regard the interrogation practices and conditions of confinement, taken together, as torture – in the ordinary layman's use of this term. But … 'torture' is also a term with a carefully worded legal meaning and definition. So I tend to avoid talking about 'torture' because it would appear I'm accusing officials of criminal activity, which I'm not sure was the case."

This is similar to when I'd said I thought Pickering was making a moral argument. Perhaps Zelikow meant the same thing when speaking to Mayer.

2) Zelikow did say:

"Had I been in the attorney general's or OLC's position in 2002, I would not have interpreted either the war crimes statute (as written then) or the torture statute in the way those officials interpreted them. But they made their choices and had the authority to make them."

You might think there's some comfort that Zelikow thinks it's torture in "the ordinary layman's use of this term." But we're not even talking about the legal argument here. We're talking about whether the Bush administration's lawyers thought they were making a genuine legal argument when they told the CIA it wasn't legally torture. And Zelikow clearly thinks that they didn't believe it was a sham even though he disagreed with their reasoning. Zelikow doesn't believe, and never suggests, that the wink and a nod ever happened.

3) Zelikow's February 15, 2006, memo doesn't quite say what you seem to think it says. It says that EIT is illegal under the McCain Amendment (aka the Detainee Treatment Act). That would be shocking news if anyone had been waterboarded after 2005, but they hadn't. You may recall that Michael Hayden had later said that waterboarding had been illegal after 2005. For all the talk of the memo being tossed out, it doesn't appear that this was any big deal.

It is interesting to note that the memo's very first paragraph (referencing Art 16 of UNCAT) says, "The State Department agreed with the Justice Department May 2005 conclusion that this Article did not apply to CIA interrogations in foreign countries."

(In other words, two sets of lawyers agreed with the earlier position.)

Then the very next paragraph begins, "That situation has now changed." The administration was quite properly trying to figure out where the new law's boundaries are. There's nothing nefarious about this.

I agree that Zelikow gives us a window into what the administration was thinking, albeit mostly after 2005. But so far, he makes my case. The term EIT was not intended as a euphemism. It's deceptive to call it one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Williams and Pickering sources are unreliable. The Williams source is an offhand remark by a reporter during an interview, not part of an edited piece of journalism. Williams may have just been trying to provoke a reaction by Panetta. The Pickering source is an opinion source. We're left with a single reliable source. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others, but more importantly there are numerous other sources that use "enhanced interrogation techniques" without describing it as a euphemism, many using scare quotes (presumably to indicate that the use of the term is disputed). These demonstrate that there's no consensus among the sources for calling EIT a euphemism. (You yourself once agreed such a consensus doesn't exist.) Calling EIT a euphemism implies an intent to deceive or soften, which is an exceptional claim -- one that requires multiple exceptional sources. Add to this the considerations that we are discussing how to describe the opening sentence of an extremely controversial topic, which means the neutrality requirement is particularly heightened. Ultimately the word "term" is simply more verifiable and neutral than "euphemism."

(On a side, note, I think it's a little misleading to say that I "substituted the word term for the word euphamism." In fact, "terms" was stably in the first sentence from July 20, 2013 until April 2, 2014 when it was switched to "euphemisms" by an IP. I was simply reverting back to the stable version. On other side note, this topic has been extensively debated in the archives, though I don't see a consensus.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to avoid the characterization altogether. That is, avoid euphamism which implies (as Randy2063 I think rightly observes) a wink and a nod and bad faith--the news reporting consensus even if not a consensus here--and also to avoid term which suggests a legitimate phrase, i.e. good faith. I did find "term" used with "enhanced interrogation" as follows: "Can we finally consign the term “enhanced interrogation” to the ash-heap of history?"--Andrew Sullivan, "'Enhanced Interrogation' in North Korea," here. I mention this with my own wink at Randy2063, knowing his opinion of Andrew Sullivan. So in sum, I'll shorten the sentence to say simply "refers to" and hope this meets with general approval.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 11:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

PS--As to "EIT" meant "to deceive or soften:" John Rizzo, former Acting CIA General Counsel--and an EIT proponent--called the phrase 'deceptive blandness'. Viz.: "When the CIA's chief lawyer, John Rizzo, first came across the term "enhanced interrogation technique" shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he was struck by the phrase's deceptive blandness . . . . The words sounded mild, possibly even salutary. But Rizzo knew they referred to the harshest methods used to elicit information from suspected terrorists in custody, including waterboarding, which mimics the experience of drowning." Baltimore Sun interview, here. In a different interview Rizzo concedes "extraordinary rendition" is a CIA euphemism for kidnapping (interviewer Amy Goodman later expands that to "a euphamism for kidnapping for torture"); also Rizzo conceded calling "drone strike list" a euphamism for murder. As to the latter, he also says he regrets his candor in what he thought was an off-the record interview. here. So If the CIA General Counsel in published interviews says the CIA uses deceptively bland language and euphamism, I don't think we Wikipedia editors can responsibly differ. Still, I think avoiding the characterization altogether, the best approach.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling something a euphemism, even if it was one, wouldn't mean it's a euphemism for torture. Harsh interrogation can be pretty harsh, and people inclined to want euphemisms might use one for that. But military terms are often dry and bland, and the CIA derives from that kind of culture. That doesn't make something a euphemism even if it sounds like one.

I don't think we ever got as much insight into EIT's development the way we did for the DoD's techniques. (BTW: The DoD's weren't called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques like this article suggests.) The DoD called them "Counter-Resistance Techniques" in 2003, and perhaps something else in the 2002 version. They used the name before they decided what techniques would ultimately be approved. That's probably the case for the CIA's as well. In other words, they probably would have been called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" even if the CIA only authorized up to the face slap. (And if that happened, the critics would then be whining about a face slap being torture -- and no, I'm not being facetious.)

When referring to Amy Goodman, perhaps you mean "interviewer" as a euphemism for what she really is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Rizzo isn't a reliable source. And I don't think the current phrasing *"refers to methods of detainee torture" is properly sourced. As I understand it, some reliable sources say some EITs were torture, some say otherwise. I haven't seen an RS that calls all EITs torture. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what we consider a reliable source. I haven't seen a U.S. court decision on the CIA's techniques.

Some have ruled, or at least charged, on waterboarding by other that the CIA, but that's not an equivalent. When determining its legality, the CIA itself had said that it was only permissible up to a certain level. We might assume the CIA would have called it torture somewhere beyond that level.

Politicians and activists have called it torture, including President Obama. But they all had political reasons for saying so, and such political pandering wouldn't necessarily bind future administrations and/or congresses should the need ever arise again. The same goes for European politicians, who will also change their minds about this stuff as soon as the winds change. It would take a judge to do anything lasting.

There were several prosecutions of GTMO detainees cancelled because of torture, but those don't really apply here. As mentioned in this article, Al-Qahtani was famously interrogated for six or seven weeks, and the judge ruled it was torture. But she said that it was torture only in combination. The individual techniques were legal. One might take this to say that's a ruling that Rumsfeld's first set of approved techniques were not torture on their own.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was almost given rough interrogation, but the interrogators slipped up and threatened him with torture. That was illegal even in 2003, and it wasn't a listed technique.

This article also mentions Binyam Mohamed, whose case was thrown out in U.K. courts because of torture. But I can't find where it says the torture was through EITs. I think the harshest part of his ordeal was at the hands of a foreign service, not EITs. (That would matter if this article wasn't a joke.) It's not a U.S. court, but at least it's a court decision, albeit we haven't shown whether or not it's relevant.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Read The Untold War by Nancy Sherman. The book states that all EITs are torture and specifically says EIT is a euphemism for torture...quote Pg 143: Institutions like Guantanamo are not killing centres...but they have been torture centres, and euphemistic and scientific terms, beyond the euphemism for torture — "Enhanced interrogation techniques" — have helped insulate practitioners from moral conflict. Sherman is uniquely qualified to make the statement. Wayne (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Wayne. I'll find the book in the library. If you would like to contribute an edit with a footnote to the book, it seems to fit best in the third paragraph of the lede.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the first sentence to restore grammar and accuracy, while maintaining neutrality. For some reason the Wikipedia page log server hiccuped and recorded an IP address rather than my Wikiname. But I can assure folks this edit was me. Since both the CIA General Counsel who approved the program cited above, and even the ombudsman for NPR here, say "harsh methods," that seems to me the right neutral language, at least for now. Further down in the lede, and in the article is where the torture discussion belongs. We can revisit this and the question of euphamism after the Senate report comes out.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Sherman is another opinion, and would be a philosophical one. Hers may be highly qualified as a moral opinion, but we're really dealing with matters of treaties and laws.

I can't imagine she said "all EITs" are torture. Nobody has yet seriously said the attention grab and the slap in the face are torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture a slap in the face can be torture. For example, is it is legal for a policeman to slap a persons face when pulled over for speeding, if so then it is not torture as it is a "lawful sanction" [in that specific country]. If that policeman can be disciplined for slapping the offenders face then it is technically torture. Wayne (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

UNCAT specifically says real torture is "severe pain or suffering." A slap in the face is not severe pain.

I wasn't kidding when I'd said that, had the CIA only used the slap in the face, its critics would have called that torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll quote from the European Court of Human Rights on the five techniques: "Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood."

In other words, interrogation methods can be so harsh as to be illegal while still not being torture.

And this ruling was taken into consideration when the DOJ's and CIA's lawyers were determining where the boundaries were.

Too many people forget what real torture is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Suffering" does not require "severe pain", for example, the Chinese water torture does not cause any pain at all. Nor does playing loud music or keeping bright lights on 24/7 cause pain but these are indisputably torture. The convention also considers "intimidation and coercion" not incidental to lawful sanctions torture. Wayne (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was responding about the slap in the face which is so much less severe than the five techniques.

But even so, much of this has been disputed, such as in the European Court of Human Rights. Suffering doesn't require pain, but it requires a great deal of anguish.

Loud music, at least in Guantanamo, could not be painful because guards also had to listen to it without hearing protection.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a false statement. The fact that it could have been painful to the guards or not is meaningless; there is nothing in the legal definition of torture that says if the guards receive an action then it can't be torture. The use of loud music over time can and does cause pain, both psychological and physical; this is obvious. If you are going to make such a remarkable claim, you need sources to back it up. Your arguments are a mix of reasoning and strangeness.174.73.5.74 (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken.

The matter of guards being present is just an example, mostly for simplicity's sake. The actual reference was also answered in my previous response regarding the European human rights court. But I said "mostly" because other courts have used a guard's presence as evidence that music wasn't torture. And in Guantanamo, there was testimony that the music wasn't that loud. The detainees may say otherwise, but honesty isn't something to be expected from anyone inclined to support or defend slavery.

There are varying levels of hardship. Some are legal, others are torture (mostly what the friends of the so-called "human rights" movement condone). You seem to be missing that some levels could even be illegal while still not being considered actual torture under U.S. or international law.

As I said, too many people forget what real torture is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

New Senate Report

Tempting as it is to start scissoring up the article to take into account the new revelations from the most recent Senate Report, I would suggest we hold off for a bit. The CIA has promised a reply to the statement that none of the torture produced useful intelligence. I would like to wait a few days to see that reply. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now that the supporters of the program have weighed in, I revised the "effectiveness and reliability" section. It is much better but still not best. This whole part of the article needs to be revised and condensed, and put in chronological order.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The report has generated a number of news articles where a few key points got consistently highlighted, and should likely be included in here. 1: The torture included sexual abuse (anal rape). 2: Threats was made to rape and murder children and mothers of detainees. 3: One prisoner froze to death during interrogation. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture article is currently listing what media is reporting, but the above 3 points were what my national news paper/tv highlighted when the news about the report came out. Belorn (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "here" is meant in this article, I agree--though not this particular section on "effeciveness and reliablility". It belongs further up in description of the techniques, maybe (or maybe not) in the lede. Could you give me cites to the newspaper articles? I have not seen them; all I have seen is the controversy over whether or not torture produces useful infoElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Those I read are from national news paper where I live, and as such, written in Swedish: svt.se, and sr.se. It is likely better to use one of the English source (such as this and this), but I brought up the subject matter here since if the highlights are circling around here in our news papers, it is likely also doing so elsewhere. Belorn (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Belorn-thanks very much. Hope your winter over there is bearable. As to specifics of techniques, I agree they ought to be here. Things is they are already detailed on the page Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. I will try to strike the right balance between summary, and necessary detail, on this page.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition

EIT is a euphemism. The definition does not make that clear. It is also far too long. It badly needs to be re-written.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques or alternative set of procedures refers to the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and various components of the U.S. Armed Forces at different black sites around the world, including Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, authorized by officials of the administration of US President George W. Bush" is one of the longest sentences in Wikipedia.

What the introduction needs to say, in separate sentences, is that EIT is a euphemism for torture; that the term came into use after 2001; that EIT was approved by US President George W. Bush for the CIA on such and such a date; that EIT was subsequently extended to the DIA etc; and that even the US administration now accepts that EIT is torture, and thus illegal under domestic and international law.

I would oppose these specific changes. In the past some disputed saying "euphamism" at the outset, on the questionable premise the Bush administration, or at least some in that administration, really thought it wasn't torture. Others have insisted redefining it makes it not torture and not illegal, or more candidly that legality doesn't matter. Like the current CIA director Brennan who today pointedly left whether the techniques will be used again to "future policy makers" --suggesting it is a question merely of policy and not law. I too would like to see the lede revised, but then the whole article needs redoing. It is a battle scarred smoking ruin. Given the strong feelings engendered by recent revelations, I think a comprehensive revision should wait until passions cool. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Change the title

This is not Enhanced interrogation techniques but Torture. Period. Even the Senate calls it Torture80.4.15.81 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)MA

Photos to illustrate article

There are a great many gruesome photos on Wikimedia Commons of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Since the "enhanced interrogation' brutality migrated from CIA into DoD prisons, are they pertinent here as illustrations? Stress positions, forced nudity, and so forth.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no opinions, pro or con, in the next day or two I will try crafting some captions for the photos and posting them. Some (like frontal nudity, or dead bodies) may not be suitable for a general encyclopedia. I will try to find suitable photos, in accord with Wikipedia guidelines on the use of potentially offensive material. In candor, when it comes to torture--what photos are not going to be offensive?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede description

Several days ago an editor suggested reciting the methods used, in the lede. That simple exercise has resulted in a large expansion of the lede. Another editor has suggested that "stress position" is not a euphamism. It is not a euphamism only if you state that it means shackling somebody to a ceiling for 22 hours straight. I will revisit this tomorrow (it is late where I am) but for the time being let's use specifics, rather than generalities. That editor has also wanted to include reference to the Five Techniques. But that's British, rather than American, and has only a tangential relation to what the CIA and Dod was authorized to do. A secondary issue is do we only list authorized abuses in the lede, and say things got out of hand and discuss unauthorized ones later? Unfortunately it is now impossible to tell which was which. Those doing it will of course say all of it was authorized, under the John Yoo legal school of la loi c'est moi: "the president could crush the testicles of a child to make his father talk." ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Five techniques"

Editor User:Asarlaí wishes to keep in the lede the "Five techniques", British in origin, forms of abuse used in Northern Ireland that a court called inhuman and degrading but not torture. The legal 'cover' in an early torture Memo drew on this distinction between merely inhumane treatment and torture (and thanks to User:Asarlaí for providing that citation). But this was only legal argument. The techniques the CIA requested to use were not copied from the British--they came out of the American SERE program, for the most part. Only later, when the US Justice department starting looking around for justifications, did the Five Techniques come up. Now, confusion about the relation between authorized techniques and actual ones is such that I will leave that in the lede for now. I hope to find a better place for it. A better place: I am considering creating a section on the antecedents of each kind of abuse. Sleep deprivation was a favorite of both a Stalin's NKVD, and the German Gestapo; "stress positions" goes back to the two thieves tied by their arms to crosses on either side of Jesus slowly suffocating as their diaphrams collapsed (and in Iraq a junior CIA person killed somebody that way); waterboarding goes back at least to the Spanish inquisition and was prosecuted as a WW II Japanese War Crime. Even the euphamism "enhanced interrogation" according to Andrew Sullivan has antecedents in a Gestapo memo. That history section might be a good place to discus whether the Five Techniques were an actual predecessor or merely a legal precedent.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose this article be moved to United States detention and interrogation programs during the presidency of George W. Bush. Clearer, to the point, and avoids a non-neutral euphemism that's been largely or completely discarded by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This page is too large already; to combine it with all detentions which during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan included tens of thousands would be unwieldy. And the detention and interrogations programs were different, according to CIA defenders: they assert "EIT's were a very small part" of what went on. As to the euphamism, there are those who continue to employ it (though a shrinking number, and none of them very credible).ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason for not prosecuting

The reason President Obama chose not to prosecute Bush administration officials? The current text suggests it was a kind of personal cowardice: if I prosecute them, my successor will prosecute me. But that is after-the-fact conjecture by people who were not there. Dean of the University of California at Berkeley Law School Christopher Edley, Jr., who WAS there, he served on Obama's transition team, said even before he took office the team had decided not to prosecute. He said they feared a mutiny by the military and the national security officials, and (ironically as it turned out) they were worried jailing the Bush administration would hamstring the Presidency because of Republican intrasigence in Congress. (The reference is here)

Obama, or at least his staff, had decided not to prosecute in other words, before he took office: before he started launching drones against civilians, before he himself might be vulnerable to a war crimes accusation. I think this section needs to change to reflect there was more than one reason, and to reduce the inference that it was wholly personal cowardice which (if this account of events is accurate) it wasn't. Still I would be happier if I could find a citation to President Obama himself stating the actual reason. All I can find is the nonsensical slogan "look forward not backward" which if taken seriously would negate the entirety of criminal law. I will await consensus.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 02:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't matter. Any statement you find is going to be political posturing.

As for phony "war crimes" charges, he is the President of the United States during a time of war. There are always going to be some with sympathies for the other side who will make accusations.

Obama has never launched drones against civilians. Targets are approved by lawyers. Yes, innocents do get killed in wars, but that's the nature of wars where the enemy gets excused for not wearing uniforms. And when the critics don't support the laws of war (e.g. such as those mentioned in your link) then that's a pretty clear sign that they don't actually oppose war crimes.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Randy. I have now found a more credible and mainstream news source for the proposition that the decision not to prosecute predated Obama's taking office, and had to do with the fear of a military mutiny, as well as Republican Congressional intrasigence, here. I will add this reasoning to the article unless there is objection.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection from me, but it should be attributed to Christopher Edley, Jr., and be careful to avoid improper synthesis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, added a sentence, using Dr. Fleischman's suggested approach.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh, … children in front of their parents

Editor ElijahBosley changed “sodomizing of a boy” to “sodomizing children in front of their parents”, citing a verbal statement by Seymour Hersh. In the Seymour Hersh Wikipedia article, Hersh appears to try to walk this verbal statement back a bit, stating "I actually didn't quite say what I wanted to say correctly”. In his book Chain of Command, he wrote that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract interpreter at Abu Ghraib, during which a woman took pictures. I didn’t see anything in the book about “parents” related to the sodomy story, or any report of more than one child involved. Given Hersh’s own statements about his verbal statement, would it be better to quote what he put in writing (in the first intro paragraph of this article)? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed this content; thanks for pointing it out. It was not reliably sourced. Hersh made this allegation in a speech, not in an edited piece of journalism. Therefore it is not reliable. This is also an example of an exceptional claim that requires multiple exceptional sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite to the Seymour Hersh article in which apparently he does seem to walk back the claim. I see no independent mainstream press corroboration of Hersh's original story, only blogs repeating it. So at this point I concur that this is an exceptional claim that needs more sources.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Torture" or "information retrieval"

An IP has proposed a change to the lede, [6]. Per WP:EUPHEMISM, I think the previous wording is superior. As the lede and body of the article go on to explain, essentially every human rights authority defines these techniques as torture and it is reasonable to identify them such in Wikipedia's voice. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Deleted "any objections" as that could be interpreted as asking whether we are agreeing with the IP. The media, political, and academic consensus is it's torture, and anything else is euphemism. --ElijahBosley ^{(talek ☞)} 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Ratemonth (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• That change is almost funny. Think about it this way:
  "information retrieval" = Google for info.
  "Torture" = hack Google to get information.
  The former is legal while the latter is not. Guess you get the point; and yes, it's the usual POV vandalism we get here on this article.TMCk (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism, just contributions by editors not familiar with our policies on neutrality and global perspective. VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If the IP is new to Wiki, you're of course right.TMCk (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request to remove bias.

Hello everyone (and you VQuakr), in the first sentence, I would like to change "euphemism for methods used in the U.S. government's program of systematic torture" to "term for methods used in the U.S. government's program of harsh interrogations". It sounds much, MUCH more neutral to me. Look guys, whether or not these techniques amount to torture is a matter of legal/personal opinion, not fact. A good number of detractors don't believe it's torture, and since Wikipedia is supposed to present all sides fairly (unless one side is a fringe or significant tiny minority - which is not the case here), I think this sentence is much better. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy, and the first sentence is a blatant opinion. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion for a similar edit was suggested above and gained zero traction. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism, and the reasoning above re the word "torture" still applies. It is not a personal opinion. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks to Cali11298 for doing the responsible thing, discussing first here rather than going back and forth with provocative reverts. That sentence is the battle scarred smoldering wreckage of edit wars off and on for years now. On the substance: all five sources call it a "euphamism for torture." Regardless of one's own opinion on what is opinion--Wikipedia goes with what the sources say.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh redux

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

He made the claims, and had them published in a recognised source, and they have been widely reported on, so I see no reason not to mention it. It would be better to leave it there and perhaps add that the claims had denied by <whoever>. Horatio (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. First, the place for Hersh's claim about Bin Laden is on the Bin Laden page, not on enhanced interrogation. It is of minor or no pertinence here. Second, if Wikipedia is going to say the moon is made of green cheese, we need confirming sources. Cheese experts. Or astronauts who landed in 1969 with crackers and a cheese knife, and found it tasty. One guy showing signs of senile dementia is not enough. Like the last inflammatory Hersh claim that proved to be false (cited above), this is an exceptional claim that needs extraordinary substantiation.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If it's good enough to be mentioned on the Bin Laden page, I don't see why it's not good enough to be mentioned on this one. It's also relevant in this article where it discusses the finding of Bin Laden, since if Hersh's claims are true then it changes the conclusion significantly. I've read Hersh's article and it doesn't seem to me to be the work of somebody suffering senile dementia. Attacking Hersh alone, without considering the arguments he presents is simply ad hominem. Horatio (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your view. Couuld we have a cite to the specific Hersh article mentioned? Surely not this Hersh interview. Which would certainly seem to corroborate what Dr. Wikipedia says about dementia: "[w]hen people with dementia are put in circumstances beyond their abilities, there may be a sudden change to tears or anger (a 'catastrophic reaction')."ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This one: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden. Horatio (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Useful cite, thanks. I agree the article looks cogent in style. In substance however, it fails. Take for instance this statement: ". . . bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI at the Abbottabad compound since 2006." How does Hersh reconcile that with Bin Laden's papers: that he considered leaving the compound months before the raid? A prisoner does not get to decide when he leaves. So--avoiding ad hominem arguments-- Hersh's account contradicts the other reporting and evidence (and calls all conflicting accounts "lies"). Which makes it an exceptional claim requiring corroboration--wherever it may be used.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 11:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Hersh is completely wrong, or perhaps right about some things and wrong about others. Who knows. However he made the claims and there has been a lot of publicity about it, and I don't see why they should be eligible to be included on one Wikipedia article (Osama bin Laden, where they have an entire section) but not this one. Horatio (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, half a paragraph at least. The entire section is not actually about Hersh. Horatio (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'anal rape'

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

The lede is too long, I agree. But reducing this article is like reforming the tax code. Line-by-line, every word has its own lobbyist. You can cope with ideologues one at a time but when they all gang up . . . . ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd hate to add to your torment! I know from experience that it is difficult to make 'partisan' subjects readable as well as RS/neutral etc.Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

British complicity in the Binyin Mohammed case

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

Merge with Torture ?

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

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

I broadly agree with Ich, this instance is a distinct historical phenomenon, which has been, and will continue to be studied and commented on, therefore merging with the general torture article would be inappropriate.Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

bias

Enhanced interrogation techniques is a euphemism for the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees

Okay thats biased.This comment left unsigned by IP.

Courts and international bodies have ruled that it IS legally torture. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

@WikiWisePowder:, it would be helpful if you said WHY you think the article is not neutral. I am only peripherally involved with the article (on my watchlist, otherwise uninvolved). Pincrete (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: the language in the article may be direct, but it is buttressed by citations from both sides of the political spectrum. And I might add, this talk page archives offer a lengthy history of wrestling over each sentence, each phrase, often each word by generations of previous editors. So a POV objection needs to quote a specific sentence or wording and say why it is out of line.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Decision not to prosecute

I am dissatisfied with the paragraph suggesting Obama decided not to prosecute because he might himself be prosecuted. That suggests self-interest and fear -- rather than statesmanship, preserving the presidency itself -- motivated his decision. On the other hand, Obama himself has never explained why. Other than the offensively glib slogan "we must look forward not backward." If we never look backward, if yesterday has no consequences, today we have no law. The murder was yesterday, you have no right to punish me today. Let's look forward not backward. It is nonsense and he knows it. But absent a better explanation we are stuck with the commentators'. I suppose we'll have to wait until his memoirs or Atty General Holder's for a less partisan, less cynical take. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the sentence speculating as to his motives. I see no reason for a 'WP voice' reason, and yes, we are left with the speculations of commentators, though I personally don't find it difficult to understand that Obama might think that the pain would not be worth the gain. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

'Methods used' in lead and 'see also's

User:Oranjelo100 I have just rolled back your series of wdits. My reasons were three-fold.

Firstly and mainly, are the additional methods used referred to in the specific source used at the end of that sentence, which is p.128 of a book? If not we would need refs for each claimed method, If the answer is yes, I apologise for the rollback. I hope you understand that we need to know that the claim is in that page of that source, not just that the method was truly used.

Secondly, it is probably not practical to put ALL methods in the lead, we have to make a judgement as to which are most important/most used/most often mentioned in sources, and I would welcome other's input on which should be in the lead. A more complete account could of course be in the body.

Thirdly, I removed your 'see also's apart from the fact that your text was not neutrally phrased, it isn't practical to 'see also' every Guantanamo inmate, I don't know how many of these have articles, but I suspect dozems, if not hundreds. If there is a 'list' article that would be a better way to link to the names. Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Enhanced interrogation techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210221047/http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/6983--cheney-admits-he-signed-off-on-waterboarding-of-three-guantanamo-prisoners.html to http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/6983--cheney-admits-he-signed-off-on-waterboarding-of-three-guantanamo-prisoners.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706132241/http://www.reprieve.org.uk/documents/FinalReprieveFASCExecutiveSummary.pdf to http://www.reprieve.org.uk/documents/FinalReprieveFASCExecutiveSummary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815124943/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org:80/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521120758/http://www.salon.com:80/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf to http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502015654/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/paperchase/2009/01/un-torture-investigator-calls-on-obama.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/01/un-torture-investigator-calls-on-obama.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928174322/http://www.humanrightsfirst.info:80/pdf/08307-etn-tortured-justice-web.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08307-etn-tortured-justice-web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

ACLU lawsuit against torture psychologists

The two psychologists who helped the CIA develop their torture program are being sued by some of the victims, with the help of the ACLU. Their defense is that they were just doing their jobs, like the company that supplied Zyklon B to the Nazis.

• CIA Torture Psychologists Compare Themselves to Nazi Poison Gas Manufacturer as Defense

This could probably be added to the part of the article discussing prosecution. 2601:644:0:DBD0:4955:8BBE:7425:A9C5 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)