Talk:Waterboarding

Break Up The Article?

This appears to be and article about two things in places: waterboarding, and a debate about whether it is torture. It is obviously torture. Perhaps the article should describe only waterboarding, what it is, and it's history, and there could be a separate article about the political controversy over it's use in the US. The controversy is an interesting product of contemporary US politics, but will eventually be a historical footnote due to the fact that it is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.33.195 (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Used in Korean war in 1951

The memoir The Edge Of The Sword by the British man Captain Farrar-Hockley includes a detailed description of undergoing water-boarding in a North Korean interogation centre in 1951 after being captured. See chapter eight. I would quote the description, but I would not want it to be used as a torturer's instruction manual. 92.28.249.253 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of attribution to statement on its reliability

The statement "According to at least one former CIA official, information retrieved from the waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions" does not contain a reference that identifies the alleged CIA official or attributes the statement to anyone specific. From my web searches this would appear to be a case of circular references with no legitimate original source. I request this statement be removed if it cannot be attributed. --Memarshall (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read two sentences further. The person is named and the comment is sourced to this ABC News article, which has it on page 2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

section "Technique", 2nd sentence:

change "...and water is poured on to the person's head."

to "...and water is poured onto the person's head."

71.35.20.185 (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus That Waterboarding is torture?

It is my understanding that NPR does not call waterboarding torture because there is not a consensus that concludes waterboarding is indeed torture. See this NPR link [javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(106215824,%20106215505,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20'0')] Why does this WP article assume waterboarding is torture? Is WP's position POV? Glennconti (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also see this source that calls into question whether or not waterboarding is torture [1] Glennconti (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you cite is one of the lawyers who who wrote the legal opinions that the CIA used to justify the use of waterboarding, opinions later repudiated by the Bush Administration. And even he says he was focused on the what constituted torture under the US law making it a felony, not the ordinary meaning of the term.--agr (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. This experienced high profile government lawyer is asserting to this day that waterboarding is not torture. Apparently his opinions were backed up by the justice department. Cheney continues to say to anyone that will listen that waterboarding is not torture; how is that being repudiated? Glennconti (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Did you mean to say "Obama Administration"? Glennconti (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to open a can of worms but I do not agree that this article's lead is neutral and have added this new source here [2] to see if we can revisit the subject. I believe that the way NPR handles the subject is better than the way we do. Glennconti (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the views of Cheney and a compromised CIA lawyer should carry the day? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No I am suggesting WP will "carry the day" if it acknowledges that there is open debate on the question of whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture as NPR has done. If a republican wins the executive office some day such as Rick Perry, we will need to reopen this question as he supports waterboarding because he does not believe it to be torture. This smacks as political decision and the winds are currently blowing democratic. Glennconti (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If Rick Perry wins the White House will we have to rew From "Fringe": all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.---- Assuming for a second that waterboarding is not torture is a fringe theory, then it would deserve some weight wouldn't it? Where is the proportionately representation of the idea that waterboarding is not torture? The lede states as a fact waterboarding is torture. Glennconti (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)rite our article on evolution too? [3] --agr (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick there are many republicans that favor waterboarding as a method of gaining intelligence. As far as a suggested edit instead of saying waterboarding is torture we say the majority of people and experts believe waterboarding to be torture. Glennconti (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of unambiguous statements from recognized experts and organizations that waterboarding is indeed torture. We have minimal opposing opinions, and these overwhelmingly politically motivated and often from people directly involved in the practice. This falls under WP:FRINGE. The fact that there are "many XXX that favor waterboarding as a method of gaining intelligence" is quite irrelevant. In the 16th century, many people favored the rack as a method of gaining intelligence on witches. That does not mean that racking was not torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are afraid of. If 29 percent [4] of people say waterboarding is not torture, this is not fringe. Why not just say what we know about it being a majority opinion instead of stating it as fact? Glennconti (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now you mention it, these people are somewhat scary. However, we are discussing an article which is about waterboarding in general, not just about waterboarding in the US. And your outdated (2007) poll does not refer, as you put it, to 29 percent "of people". The source says it's 29 percent of Americans. And maybe not even Americans in the proper sense... but merely 29 percent of people who live in the US. On the world stage this is a very small fringe view drawn from a group of people who would also be inclined to believe evolution is not science. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost any fringe theory will show significant support in opinion polls. Flying saucers are real, the mafia killed JFK, 9-11 was staged, Elvis is alive, you name it. According to a 2013 poll, 33% of Americans believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” [5] Should we say evolution is "a majority opinion instead of stating it as fact?"--agr (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

From "Fringe": all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.---- Assuming for a second that waterboarding is not torture is a fringe theory, then it would deserve some weight wouldn't it? Where is the proportionately representation of the idea that waterboarding is not torture? The lede states as a fact waterboarding is torture. Glennconti (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for a second that 2+2 is 5, then 2 times 5 is 8... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for a moment that the Earth is flat, perhaps that opinion should be mentioned in the lead of our article on Earth, as long as I can find an ancient poll that backs me up. Sound ok? --John (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not yet concede "waterboarding is not torture" can be catagorized as a fringe therory. But, if it is, as you propose it deserves proportionate weight. Glennconti (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As the FAQ at the top of this page says, "If you wish to change the assertion that waterboarding is a form of torture... [you] should support your proposal with high quality reliable sources, such as from medical or legal scholars, supporting why it would not be an accurate description." All you have provided here is an outdated poll of a group of people who have notoriously unreliable views on all sorts of matters. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check the sources list at the top of this page. I have indeed provided a new source, as required. Please check the history for the John A Rizzo source from January of 2014. Glennconti (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John Rizzo is a highly compromised CIA lawyer with a strong COI in the matter. In what sense can his protestations be viewed as a reliable source? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John Rizzo is an expert on the matter of waterboarding and was general counsel of the CIA during the time that waterboarding was performed under the Bush administration. What do you mean "high compromised" is that a euphemism for appointed by a different administration?

Please try to be coherent. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All I am proposing is that we treat this subject like NPR does and I get every sort of attack back. Standing up for the minority is not so easy. Glennconti (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Every sort of attack"? Your experience must be extremely limited if you think so. But back to the topic. "Highly compromised" means, in this context, at least to me, that he himself was significantly involved in the practice, and shares a significant part of the responsibility. Relying on his statement is a bit like asking Bill Clinton for a definition of "sex". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "responsibility"? Is this article some sort of indictment? There are those that say that "Waterboarding is torture" and there are those who don't. There are those that say the "responsibility" from Rizzo's and others actions is a safer USA and the death of Osama Bin Laden (supposedly these are the result of intelligence gained from enhanced interrogation[6]). Your POV is that these men are some sort of criminals. I don't buy your Clinton analogy. Rizzo has not disqualified himself as being an expert on this matter. Glennconti (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not some forum for you to disgorge dilapidated opinions. Please confine your discussion to reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did provide a reliable source here [7]. It was CIA Chief Leon Panetta's opinion. You must have missed it. Glennconti (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(Umm, let's keep this civil please.) Mr. Rizzo and his colleagues only argue that waterboarding does not qualify as torture under what they admit is a narrow reading of the US statute prohibiting torture and the stipulations under which the US ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. They do not argue that it isn't torture under the ordinary meaning of the word, or under what most ratifiers of the convention understood it to mean. We discuss those views early in the article and at great length in a separate article Torture Memos linked from there. That is plenty of weight given to their views. Also note that the UN convention, which the US ratified, says in article 2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."--agr (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, Rizzo says under US law waterboarding is not torture. And you are saying that the ordinary person would say waterboarding is torture. Why does the ordinary meaning trump the US legal definition? And why can't we use a qualifier such as "waterboarding is torture under the common understanding of the term"Glennconti (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. Rizzo only says that he does not concede the point - which may be a mere tactical manoeuvre. Also, he may be lying, or "dissembling". Like Clinton about sex - see above. It's not his expertise that is under question, but his impartiality and motives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Rizzo said:

On whether, in retrospect, he believes waterboarding is a form of torture:

No. I'm a lawyer, and torture is legally defined in U.S. law. If I had concluded — or, more importantly, if the Justice Department had concluded — that these techniques constitute torture, we would never have done them. So I can't say they were torture. I didn't concede it was torture then, and I don't concede that it's torture now.

Read the first word of the response to the question of whether water boarding is a form of torture."No." Glennconti (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) It just doesn't get any plainer than that. Under US Law waterboarding is not torture; then or now. (according to this reliable source) Glennconti (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rizzo is just one attorney who was hired to advocate for his client, the CIA, hardly a reliable source for the validity of that client's views. And the opinions he supports were subsequently repudiated by the Inspector General of the Justice Department and the President of the United States, so his view has no legal significance anymore, if it ever did. More importantly, torture is a crime under international law, and numerous experts have said waterboarding is torture under that standard.--agr (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. He was not hired to advocate for the CIA. He was there to determine if in fact waterboarding was torture. If it was determined waterboarding was torture he would have disallowed its use as he had done for other methods. Both he and the Justice department determined waterboarding was not torture and therefore allowed its use. The people that repudiated him were politically motivated. You see waterboarding is not a popular method and pandering to the vote the President and his administration stopped its use via executive order (See 2008 Democratic Party Platform Torture(Waterboarding) & Guantanamo Bay [8]). Rizzo is a reliable source and the fact that he is in the minority does not silence his voice. His views deserve proportional treatment as NPR currently allows. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What percentage of the world's people live in the US? This view represents a minority view from someone with a COI who was hired to defend one regime's use of this torture. Why should it have more weight than the entire rest of the world over the entirety of recorded history? --John (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a minority view. The view that "waterboarding is not torture" is currently given no weight by WP in the lede sentence. It is a minority view that should be given some weight. As I have already said there is no COI and he was not hired to defend torture. Rizzo is a reliable source to represent this viewpoint as it is held by him and others. Glennconti (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The weight he is given just now is about right. I won't respond further here; please read the archives. --John (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From the Archives: The original request called for legitimate sources presenting evidence of a valid dispute. It appears to me as if this section contains several sources that qualify. I therefore think that a changed wording to "Waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique generally considered to be torture." is justified based on the non-fringe opinions evincing a genuine dispute. Opinions? -Lciaccio (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC). Seems like a completely reasonable solution. Glennconti (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Waterboarding cannot be a form of torture because if it were, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be sitting in jail based on the following from this article, "The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past". Bush and Cheney clearly are not sitting in jail. Commenters here who question the contention that opinion is split on whether waterboarding is torture or not, call for sources that it is not, while relying on "Human Rights Watch" and "New York Magazine" as THEIR sources! In fact, this article is, and always has been full of contradictions and worst of all, biased on the subject of waterboarding, and a travesty against truth and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you wish, Andy, but based on the citations to support the first paragraph of this article, that is not the case.

Request for comment: John A. Rizzo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is John A. Rizzo an expert on waterboarding that is, can he be considered a high quality reliable source. Please see above talk section too. Glennconti (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please clarify the question. The first and the second parts are not equivalent and can have different answers (for me those would be "probably" and "no"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that I cannot reopen the debate on the lead sentence without a high quality reliable source. Editors have been saying that John A. Rizzo is "highly compromised". To me that implies they disputing that he is indeed a high quality source. I just want to proceed with the debate and settle the question of John A. Rizzo's suitablity. Glennconti (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. In that case, no Rizzo is not a high-quality source. He is (or was) a lawyer for one side involved in the dispute and hence has to argue for that side, quite regardless of his expert opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - An attorney hired by a client is expected to advocate for that client. There is nothing wrong with that, it's how things are supposed to work. In some situations they may even tell the client no, you can't do that. That does not make them less of an advocate. This is true whether the client is the CIA, Coca-Cola or your favorite charity. A client's attorney can be a good source for facts about the client's position on an issue, but never a reliable source on the validity of that position, regardless of their reputation, expertise or personal belief in that position.--agr (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• No for the reasons given by ArnoldReinhold above. Lawyers are expected to argue a case for their clients. They are neither expected to be, nor recognised as, impartial experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Rizzo was not hired to advocate a position held by the CIA. His job while at the CIA was to evaluate the Justice departments position, pass judgement on that position and then implement it in the department if he considered it legal. Glennconti (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment limited solely to his involvement he is a reliable source. However he would be a Primary source wouldn't he? Your really isn't suited as is for RFC. You really aren't offering any context. This question is better suited for the reliable sources notice board.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dude. Waterboarding is considered toture by the majority. Not just by the wikipedia consensus but that of the reliable sources. The Minority view that it is not torture is covered. John Rizzo is not a reliable source that can be used to change the first sentence of the lead. If you would like Rizzo's positions to be included elsewhere in the article then Be bold but your argument has done nothing to change the consensus. The point made by telling you to get a reliale source is that this conversation has been had a thousand times over. Check the archives. WP:EXCEPTIONAL Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Rizzo does not meet that standard. Waterboarding in context to the use that Rizzo is aware is physical coersion. Please close this RFC and comeback when you have something.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you really want to pursue this further try NPOV noticeboardSerialjoepsycho (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• No in terms of what you want to do with it. --John (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.