Talk:Waterboarding/Sources archive

what this could be
A page to collect and archive all the various "source" discussion from talk, as an additional duplicate copy from the regular talk archives. Could be useful as a quick cheat sheet while building out the article. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here
No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen  16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From Innertia Tensor

 * 100 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
 * John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
 * reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."
 * U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, . (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
 * U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340
 * On two counts in plain English.
 * (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004
 * For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
 * Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
 * Mississippi Supreme Court. In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
 * International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8 "The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging."
 * Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

From Lawrence Cohen

 * Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
 * CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
 * Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
 * Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
 * Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
 * Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."
 * I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen  08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.
 * ''Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.


 * "Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."''

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

 * The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

 * Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

 * Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen  17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."
 * And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen  15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively.  There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.
 * Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis.  After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.
 * UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is?  I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Wikipedia is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen  17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs.  It either does or it doesn't.  The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.
 * I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions.  Some are better than others, but they're still opinions.  Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth.  In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category.  Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Wikipedia does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Wikipedia reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen  19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here.  I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.
 * I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions.  For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial.  That was merely a legal opinion.  It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).


 * There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen  20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion.  (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.)  The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.
 * It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture."  That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.
 * I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen  21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture
Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. [] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)