Talk:Five techniques

European Commission on Human Rights

'The European Commission on Human Rights ruled that these practices constituted inhumane and degrading treatment" This is wrong. The above body specifically adjudged that the Five Techniques constituted a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, specifically, it decided that the actions carried out were serious enough to constitute 'torture' of Irish citizens. [ See 'The Law' by Jeremy Waldron]. It was the European Court of Human Rights which dissented from this decision and ruled that the tactics used during Operation Demetrius merely constituted 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'. El Gringo 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Could somebody change the title to Five Techniques? It is a proper noun. I've just written the article on Operation Demetrius and was wondering why Five Techniques was not linking properly. So now I know! John Conroy has a good article on them here as well: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/conroy-unspeakable.html El Gringo 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt notice this and thought it was a typo so changed Demetrius to "techniques" to get the link working Fluffy999 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

02:37, 31 May 2006 El Gringo m (moved Five techniques to Five Techniques: The Five Techniques were a proper noun, not merely five techniques)

I have moved the article back because the primary source uses five techniques "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" which is a transcript of the original judgement. As does this respectable secondary source INTERNATIONAL DECISIONS: REPUBLIC OF IRELAND v UNITED KINGDOM (Series A, No 25) European Court of Human Rights (Queens University Belfast School of law) which introduces the phrase as "in particular the so-called 'five techniques', which included ... " --PBS 17:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051120013416/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org:80/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On my removal of reference to Israel in the overview

I see this is not an active Talk page but I wanted to clarify the reason for my edit in case somebody might wish to rework the paragraph. I noted that the reference to Israel was hostile and misleading - though this could be explained by a combination of carelessness and a misleading cited article.

The 'justification of interrogation techniques' turns out to refer to the 1999 Israeli High Court decision to outlaw precisely such techniques, so that the impression given by that line pre-edit was precisely contrary to the truth. See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/07/israel

However, since the High Court made reference to the UK-Ireland ruling in its own ruling, it might be relevant to detail this somewhere in the article, if somebody felt it was important enough to dig into and reintegrate properly. My own feeling is that it probably doesn't bear materially on the topic. 2001:8003:3546:E600:18BE:FBC6:8FFF:E520 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court 2021

I've added the ruling in the header of the article, but there will need to be more written about the ruling in the body. I'm not well informed on the Ruling and would appreciate anyone who has more knowledge to write the body paragraph. Cheers. --TheDamox (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)