Talk:Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape

Sensitive info

The previous information is considered Sensitive by the Federal government and should not be retained. It has been replaced with superior information, in the fact that the current information is accurate and obtained from official information sites, and not New Yorker articles based on hearsay and intended to inflame. I apologize to anyone bothered by the change.=Tsalagi

It's a little late for censorship. The information has already been distributed in about 800,000 copies of the New Yorker. One of the benefits of the free press in your country is that you can publish information that your government would like to suppress (i.e. mark secret or sensitive). Also the WP article does not state that the New Yorker information is "fact", only that this is what has been reported about SERE. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia is not limited to sources approved by the US military. I think most editors would agree that this is a good thing. --Lee Hunter 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The techniques taught at SERE are classified for a reason. If they are common knowledge then US (and Commonwealth) servicemembers are at risk. However, I think a compromise has been reached in the current incarnation of the article? =Tsalagi

But if they've been published in a high-circulation magazine then they are already by definition common knowledge. --Delirium 13:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

NY Times material

I've trimmed and edited the new material from the NY Times substantially. It seemed like the extensive quotes were a bit over the top. Also it's an op-ed column, not a report by a staff writer. I've also removed the link to the article because NY Times links die after a few weeks. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sleppeing bag what?

There is mention of the sleeping bag technique but there is no description of what it is. It may as well not be mentioned, and one wouldn't miss a thing. --Anagnorisis 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Accuracy

Considering that what is know about SERE is primarily speculative, I think that anything specific to the methods employed and details of the course be documented line by line. In other words, I don't think an anonymous email to Juan Cole is going to cut it. TDC 21:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please specify which facts you have a problem with. --Lee Hunter 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with all the facts about SERE coming from one biased source. TDC 05:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Start with the section title that includes the phrase "torture allegations." Reading the New Yorker and NY Times pieces, it's difficult to find any credible allegations of torture related to SERE. An Iraqi militant was apparently killed while undergoing stress positions, but given that those involved have been charged with crimes, it's not evident that this was an authorized part of the procedure that allegedly comes from SERE. The ones trying to make that claim are the very men who've been charged. That's hardly a credible source. -- Randy2063 04:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the source for SERE's training techniques, in the opening of the article, has only one sourec, namely an anonymous email to Juan Cole. TDC 18:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Note the wording of the sentence: "The SERE program has been reported to involve ... " --Lee Hunter 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there are other sources for the material other than Juan Cole's anonymous email reporting the tactics used at SEREs. TDC 20:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The author of that email was interviewed by Jane Mayer for her article in the New Yorker. The New Yorker has long had a good reputation for fact checking - i.e. they wouldn't necessarily confirm that the techniques are real but they would confirm that the author of that email is someone who should know what he's talking about. --Lee Hunter 20:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One problem with this article is that the techniques listed are not really techniques. They may be things that could happen at SERE but I believe this gives a very misleading impression of what really goes on. The reality is far more complicated. Anyone who wishes to learn about SERE is not going to be well served reading that.

I read Cole's blog semi-regularly, and had read the letter when it first came out. While I believed the guy could have been there, his extrapolation to Gitmo (which I recall is the reason he wrote it) is well off the mark. I think it was before the "mining the program" scenario hit the press, and that he was trying to offer credence to the Koran desecration spin that was just out. -- Randy2063 22:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The New Yorker article claims several sources for the discussion of SERE techniques, the guy who wrote to Cole and someone the writer describes as an "affiliate" of the program. The sexual element is confirmed by the 1995 lawsuit. But again the WP article is clear that this is only what is "reported" - in other words, there is certainly more to the program but this is what has been published to date. --Lee Hunter 01:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My point was that those techniques don't begin to tell the real story. Those articles aren't attempting to do so either. They're starting from the torture narrative angle and veering off into a different direction that really has little to do with SERE.

This is not to say that I favor getting rid of that list of techniques. It's already out there, and somebody else would only come along to put it back. Ironically, any connection of SERE to Gitmo lends credence to the U.S. military's claims that they're not using any real forms of torture. -- Randy2063 19:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Focus on "Resistance" portion of training

I find it dissapointing and rather cynical that this article focuses almost exclusively on the Resistance portion of SERE training. In terms of time investment, it accounts for less than 25% of the course. The majority of SERE deals with Survival and Evasion, yet there is almost nothing mentioned on this. Ironically, the Survival and Evasion portions of the course are the most transparent parts, with only a few classified areas, whereas the Resistance (POW camp) portion is almost entirely Classified Secret.

Land Navigation, climate-specific survival skills, creation of improvised tools, "survival medicine" (a modified version of battlefield first aid), camouflage techniques, and communication protocols comprise a great deal of what is taught at SERE. Students are taught about various methods to make contact with friendly forces and getting home. THAT is the focus of SERE- Getting home.

I will say two things regarding the Resistance training. 1)It sucks. 2)The "guards" don't like it when you ask them what time arts and crafts will be. ;) This is from a SERE graduate, so you can trust what I say. I can verify that if absolutely necessary. I cannot, however, divulge any classified info- Sorry. Si3gmund 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a USAF SERE Specialist--and actually instruct S-V80, the combat survival course--and there is some incorrect information within this page. How can I correct it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.35.138.10 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 May 2006.

On the top, there is a tab saying 'edit this page'. This on it and it will go to the edit page. Simply make changes and click on 'Save page' and your edit will take place immediately. Skinnyweed 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was started after the New Yorker article came out, and took its cues from its naive conspiracy-mongering. Correcting a few facts wouldn't remove the underlining B.S. quotient. Worse, it would lend the torture meme a sense of legitimacy it doesn't merit.

-- Randy2063 01:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is a neutral fact-based outline of the SERE program. This is followed by a mention of the Air Force Academy scandal and the more recent controversy re. it's well-documented use in interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. Seems pretty straightforward to me. What part do you have a problem with? --Lee Hunter 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing neutral about a supposed GTMO-SERE connection.

I don't see the alleged use in GTMO as being well-documented. Jane Mayer takes too many leaps.

Bloche and Marks are lawyers clearly taking a side (the wrong one). They have no direct knowledge in any of this. I would throw that entire reference out. The only good purpose it serves is that we may remember these two.

The bit on Iraqi Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush has apparently fallen apart. The phrase "SERE-trained interrogators" can refer to a lot of things. I went to that Wiki article and found the quote, and then followed its source to the Washington Post article hoping to see what it meant. Well, the Post evidently figured out it was clueless, as they removed the reference to SERE. It's gone. The paragraph is there but it doesn't mention SERE.

As for the rest, helping fascists undermine SERE training is not something I want to participate in. You may think it's of service to help expose a violation of some sort, but that's only if the story itself is to be believed.

-- Randy2063 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right about the Mowhoush article. I've made a fix in that article and removed the reference to him completely here. Thanks for pointing that out. --Lee Hunter 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I look into it a bit further, there is a reported connection between Mowhoush and SERE. I've replaced the original paragraph with a reference to an article by Human Rights First. --Lee Hunter 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. First of all, the interrogator was defending himself from charges of killing that fascist in custody.

Then, if you read closer you'll see that "Human Rights" First is not really making the claim that any of the so-called "SERE techniques" led to the death of that prisoner. They may want the reader to think that, but they're a bunch of sleazy lawyers; they know how to phrase things artfully. (I'll be adding HRF to my watch list.)

I suppose you could still say that the interrogator charged with that fascist's death may have once been to SERE, and that he claimed to have used some unauthorized SERE techniques that didn't lead to anyone's death, until he changed course and used other techniques that did kill him.

-- Randy2063 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (with an edit in previous message to highlight a point)

Not accurate and extrememly speculative

Every service conducts SERE training differently.

The Code of Conduct is only mentioned in the first two sentences and no where else. The CoC is the standard; SERE skills are how a Service Member meets the standard set my the CoC.

Half of this page is speculative. This is not an information page. For factual information seek your units S-3 or contact the school directly.

Is this a fact page on the actual training or one documenting the scandals? Why isn't DODI 1300.7, 1300.21, or 1300.23 used as a reference instead of liberal publications focusing on scandal. SERE is not about scandal. This article is shameful. BryanBessette 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)The Beast

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BryanBessette (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out those documents. I've added links to two of the DODIs you mention (1300.21 and 1300.23). I'm not sure about 1300.7, perhaps I didn't have the right document but it didn't seem to have much information. I didn't do more than skim the DODIs, so if you or anyone else are aware of important facts in those documents that should be noted in the article then, by all means, please add them. Re. your question about whether it's a fact page or documenting the scandals, the answer is that like all Wikipedia articles it's everything factual and notable about SERE which can include simple descriptive information, criticism, praise, investigative reports etc. As long as it's important information and appears in a reliable source it can be included in the article. --Lee Hunter 23:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You added this back in "Despite constituting only a small portion of the whole training, it is often regarded as mysterious and controversial, despite, or perhaps because of, the dearth of verified information regarding its actual content. " and I think it is objectionable because it is speculation and not measurable. In the military it is NOT mysterious or controversial. If you insist on having this a part of the article you should site the study that was conducted that measurably concludes this villified view of the training. BryanBessette 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)