Talk:Waterboarding

Innaccuracy in need of edit

At the end of the third paragraph the assertion is made that "According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized attack on Los Angeles.[12]" The only source cited for this statement is a news website with a slogan "The Right News. Right Now." which leads me to believe that this may not be an unbiased source, and the link to the primary resource on the website is broken. this statement also conflicts with the known chronology of the events in question. Based on a press release from the Bush white house which was released on February 9, 2006 which states "Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html Since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in 2003 it would be impossible to use information obtained from him to stop an attack which was planned for and stopped in 2002.

Request for Edit from Adam G

In the article, at the end of the introduction, it states:

"On May 3, 2011 Obama Administration CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted to NBC reporter Brian Williams intelligence gathered through waterboarding was crucial to the success of the May 1, 2011 raid that succeeded in killing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.[21]"

Stating that Panetta thought waterboarding was "crucial" is a blatant misrepresentation of what Panetta said during the interview. It is clear that he questions its efficacy, and he proposes the possibility that the same information could have been obtained by other means:

---

Brian Williams: "I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding, that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?"

Leon Panetta: "You know, Brian, in the intelligence business, you work from a lot of different sources of information, and that was true here. We had a multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees, but we also had information from other sources, as well. So, it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got."

Williams: "Turned around the other way: Are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to the successful mission?"

Panetta: "No, I think some of these detainees clearly were - you know - they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying, that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches, I think, is always going to be an open question."

Williams: "So, final point, one final time: Enhanced interrogation techniques - which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years - that includes waterboarding?"

Panetta: "That’s correct."

---

This interview is available at the source listed on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Grise (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, so we have a 'smoking gun' situation here were 8 years later the information that may or may not have been waterboarded out of a detainee allowed us to swoop down and track a courier that eventually lead us to bin laden. In all honesty, they probably did waterboard the information out of the detainee... torture has a way of doing that. RTRimmel (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a quote for John McCain. It's a bit long, but pertinent to the above request.--agr (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

So its been a week and nothing novel has been raised about the status. Can we remove the flag now or do we have some new sources I haven't seen that would merit us changing the long standing consensus. If we are going to change the lead I like the "Waterboarding is a form of dry drowning that simulates death which is most often used for torture" line, but feel waterboarding is torture is more NPOV. RTRimmel (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good and reasonable compromise. Rodchen (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's misleading. Waterboarding isn't also a sport, recreational activity or meditation technique. Apart from derived uses such as trying out if it's really so bad or trying to prove how tough one is, torture is the only way in which it's used. Making an article POV before removing an unjustified POV template is not a good idea. Hans Adler 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it from that angle. Most often used should be removed per WP:Weasel so "Waterboarding is a form of dry drowning that simulates death which is a form of torture" Maybe we should flip it around to "Waterboarding is a form of tortue in which dry drowning is used to simulates death." But dry drowning is overly complicated and how do you simulate death so maybe simple it down to "Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning." That says the exact same thing just in more clear and easier to understand words while avoiding NPOV and weasel flags. That sounds like a good and reasonable compromise. RTRimmel (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that nothing novel have been raised, that the tag should be removed, and the article intro should be remain as it is. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gone. --John (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the lengthly discussion over time, the neutrality of this article is still in dispute. Please read the archives to see the significant dispute editors have. Rodchen (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute doesn't become significant (at least not in a relevant sense) just because one side never gives up. Otherwise all our articles on fringe topics would always have POV tags, since most fringe supporters are simply not the kind of persons who will give up just because they are faced with reason. The same applies here. The idea that waterboarding is not torture is a clear case of fringe both on an international level and also in a pure US context when you consider this question in the long term. One US president insisted on applying this torture technique and therefore started a campaign for reinterpreting it as something else. Ultimately he failed. (This Orwellian attempt to present torture as acceptable was symptomatic for the unusual collective self-centeredness and hypocrisy of US society – one of the most important reasons for the widespread anti-Americanism that led to the 2001 attacks. The US' reactions looked almost as if designed to increase the danger that similar events will occur in the future.) Hans Adler 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So then when should the tag be removed? The tag specifically says 'The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.' Please abide by Wikepedia directions. Rodchen (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am inclined to cut the Gordian Knot. In every manufactroversy there is somebody opposing consensus. The mere existense of contradictory comments is apparently evidence of a controversy, and as such becomes an argument to place a POV tag. The situation at hand is very simple, this debate has been restarted a thousand times. Every time we find that the position of the overwhelming majority of experts (note: I am not including pundits, politicians, WP editors, and other individuals with an axe to grind without the necessary qualifications) is that waterboarding is torture, homeopathy is placebo, vaccines do not cause autism, the earth is not flat, et cetera. It cannot be the case that anyone pushing the restart button gets rewarded by allowing what amounts to unconstructive editing to repeatedly derail those article. Please acquaint yourselves with denialism and cognitive dissonance.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit regarding Waterboarding use

According to the cited references, the article states: Alleged Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. but it should state: In recent years, the CIA used waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) during the 2002 to 2003 time frame. Rodchen (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the intro per above request; alleged suspect is redundant. --agr (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Classification as torture

Let's say that it is "generally regarded as torture".

Although apparently only US Republicans and CIA operatives (of unknown political affiliation) refuse to call it "torture", it would seem not to be a universally accepted point that waterboarding is torture. There are also those (such as the APA) who want similarly to extend the definition of torture to include hooding; forced nakedness; stress positions; slapping or shaking; and isolation.

These are certainly coercive - everyone agrees on this, starting with the advocates of such techniques. In fact, the only reason US anti-terrorist interrogators do these things is to get information on what the "terrorists" are doing or planning: i.e., "We'll make him talk."

For the intro to say simply that it is torture isn't neutral. This would discourage readers from going any further and discovering that there is a controversy. In fact, it would violate our undue weight policy, by implying that a greater percentage of advocates (i.e., 100%) take this position than actually do.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I don't have a position on whether anything "is torture". I'm just trying to make sure that we describe all viewpoints fairly, per NPOV.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. There is no requirement that a fact be universally accepted for it to be stated as a fact in Wikipedia. The Earth article uncritically stated that the earth is around, and does not give any credence to those who claim it is flat. Likewise, a few Bush administration lawyers (who were brought in for the express purpose of giving legal justification for what is clearly illegal activity) not withstanding, everyone regards waterboarding as torture. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the main Bush memo drafter, John Yoo, has expressed doubts about approving waterboarding: http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/22/yoo-forgot-he-approved-waterboarding/ --agr (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some will never confront reality no matter how much it's pocking their nose.TMCk (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it torture is neutral, because it is torture. As previously discussed at great, great length here. We quite rightly don't carry a disclaimer on the lede of the 9/11 article stating that some people think it was an inside job either. People who don't believe waterboarding is torture are in the same loony category as those who think 9/11 was an inside job. --John (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to comment on a commnet, but John, saying that people whose opinion differ from yours are "loony" does not bolster your argument. There is nothing in your comment but opinion. Opinion doesn't count here. Raul said it best. The LEAD should refer to the technique as "coercive". If you want to discuss the "torture" appelation later in the article, fine. The term has become too politically charged to be in the first sentence. When I saw that, it called into question for me the remainder of the article. The whole problem is that the term "torture" does not have a strict enough definition for wiki to use it. Since it is open to SUBJECTIVE interpretation, it does not belong in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.159.226 (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP goes by the sources and represents a world wide view on the subject.TMCk (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Using John Yoo as a reference with respect to APPROVING waterboarding says NOTHING about its classification as torture. In fact, John Yoo has pointed out that 20,000 of our own military have been waterboarded as training for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Does the US torture its own soldiers? The fact is "Waterbaording is a form of torture" is a politically charged term, intentionally used to slant the discussion, and absolutely does not belong as the lead. It's categorization as torture is ambiguous. I have offered the alternative "waterboarding is a coercive interrogation technique (some argue torture)" as the lead. This phrase, in fact, SETS THE TABLE for discussion, it doesn't try to stiffle it as the current lead does.