Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Origin of the term

The section enhanced interrogation techniques#Origin of the term is complete garbage. It is only Andrew Sullivan's opinion. The editors of The Atlantic had acknowledged that there are no fact checks on his writings. His writings are interesting opinion, but authoritative only in that these are his opinions. He is a fool who hasn't the slightest idea what went on in the back rooms of the CIA when they came up with this.

And it is blatantly obvious garbage that no one seriously believes. "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is in no way a direct translation of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

The techniques themselves are basically from third degree (interrogation), which predates the Nazis.

It needs to be fixed or removed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Randy2063. Thanks for your view. Perhaps a tad strident, but it does raise an interesting point about whether a translation of a phrase like "Verschärfte Vernehmung" can be a matter of opinion. More importantly though do you recall a book or secondary source that states who in the CIA, Justice Department OLC or wherever it was, who it was that first came up with the term "enhanced interrogation?" Or when the term was first used? Former CIA Director George Tenet's book is unclear on this, and I don't recall seeing anything in Jane Mayer's book the Darkside. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source for that either.

From my reading, the CIA saw that their normal techniques weren't working, and so they requested more. Since the request had to be written down, the reasonable assumption is that they would have created the name at that time -- before they even created the list. I think they'd have kept the name even if they had stopped with stress positions.

The name is functional, as you'd expect from a bureaucracy. What else would they have called it? This article also uses the translations "intensified interrogation," or "sharpened interrogation." This is the smoking gun for how bogus the section is, because it means that Sullivan would still have played the Gestapo story regardless which of those terms the CIA came up with.

Besides that, the common popular theory (which I don't completely buy either) is that they looked at SERE, which was based on communist techniques. Does anybody seriously believe the communists didn't have third degree techniques until after they'd read about it in obscure Gestapo manuals?

Let's not forget that the British were also using these techniques in WWII. There were still plenty of people with first-hand knowledge in the '50s. That's what makes Sullivan's rantings so silly.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Randy--Yes, I tend to agree with your hypothesis that different people in different places at different times facing a similar situation, could well independently come up with the same solution. That probably applies both to the techniques, and the name used. Germans being as bureaucratic as anybody else. This isn't a Wiki-citable anecdote since it is not (yet) published anywhere, but I know the American military translator who spoke to a German farmer who, in exchange for two cartons of American cigarettes, lead American military intelligence to the haystack where the Nazis had hidden six million (!) Nazi party identify files. My friend who was himself originally German, said "typical German bureaucrats--the six million files were filled out in triplicate!" The bureauratcs had left behind critical info in triplicate that became a major source of evidence used at Nuremberg. As to the present problem, I've taken the liberty of writing Jane Mayer, author of The Darkside, to ask whether in her research she found out who in the CIA (or wherever it was) first used the term "enhanced interrogation," and where it came from. She may know if its been published in some secondary source, in which case it would be Wiki-citable. My query has to go by snail mail since I only have her street address. If or when she responds I'll post an immediate update here. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated it. Total rubbish, POV pushing.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You erred. Discuss such changes first, and reach consensus before making a change. I restored it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is you who has erred. Kindly seek consensus before adding contentious and unsupported materials back into the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not merely bogus. It is juvenile. I just reread the Sullivan rant. He doesn't actually say it was the first use of the term as our article does.

If you read it carefully, you'll see that his own translated source calls it "sharpened interrogation." It is only Sullivan who calls it "enhanced interrogation."

As I pointed out, the use of these techniques were not uncommon elsewhere before the 1930s, including the U.S. This means the Nazi comparison cannot be anything other than bias.

So, to summarize:

Is Sullivan an objective reporter? No.

Does his column actually say what our article says? No.

Is there any chance that these techniques originated with the Nazis? No.

Is there any chance that the name for these techniques originated with the Nazis? No.

Is the Nazi link highly inflammatory? Yes.

What are we supposed to do with highly inflammatory bias?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy2063, thanks for weighing in with cogent reasoning and rhetoric. Meant to update my previous response above: Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side kindly responded to my letter inquiring about the source of the term with "It's a great question, but I don't know the answer [that is, whom originated 'enhanced interrogation']." She suggested I contact a Harpers Magazine writer named Scott Horton. I doubt Horton would know either. Former CIA Director George Tenet might know. But even if Tenet says something like "the CIA Terrorism Strike Force Deputy Director who came up with that was a German major, had Germany as his previous assignment, fluent in German, and when they were looking around for what to call this stuff he suggested initially as a joke "Verschärfte Vernehmung"--it started as a joke you understand, but it caught on in the ranks. . . etc." --even if Tenet gives me a complete etymology we can't publish it. Because that would be OR without a secondary source. The only secondary source etymology is Andrew Sullivan's. At Oxford, Sullivan took a First in Modern History and Modern Languages (so one hesitates to question his translation) also has a Harvard PhD, and has worked for the New Republic, Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Daily Telegraph, Esquire, among others (bio here). He is a published and a respected journalist, so I have no problem giving him a footnote. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of speculation.

The trouble is, the article is still wrong even if we do include Sullivan's ravings. It currently says the first use of the term "appears to be" 1937. Sullivan does not say that. He doesn't even say there was a chain of influence. He's only saying they're similar techniques.

The only thing we could possibly use this for is to compare it to other harsh interrogation uses, like the third degree (interrogation), five techniques, Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, and the London Cage. But to suggest it's influential is simply wrong.

The only reason to focus on a Nazi connection is bias. Half the readers will spot that, and they'll assume they know what to expect for the rest of the article. The other half will buy anything.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. While Sullivan says "The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis--" I agree with you that confuses whether the etymology is actually traceable back to 1937, on whether it is merely a case of "great minds --or not so great minds--think alike." I'll rewrite that to say that it is Mr. Sullivan's view that . . . (etc.) That way people can take it with the requisite grain of salt. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grain of salt? Sorry, but it's entirely untrue. It is nothing like "great minds" thinking alike.

For one thing, Sullivan (an opinion columnist) is only saying that something like the term was used before. His source actually uses "sharpened interrogation". Sullivan decides "sharpened" means the same thing as "enhanced" but it's obviously not the official translation.

Why say it's German for "enhanced interrogation," "intensified interrogation," or "sharpened interrogation" when "sharpened" is obviously the preferred synonym, and the one Sullivan's source used? What do you think this article's readers are going to say when think that's the origin of the term, and then check up the source and see how it was mangled? They will rightly feel they've been deceived.

Look up "enhanced" in a thesaurus. Sharpened isn't there but look at how many there are. Think about it: If the CIA had called it by any one of a dozen other synonyms, would you still be trying to suggest that this belongs in "Origin of the term"? Why not? That appears to be what you're saying. It could just as well have been called "amplified" and Sullivan would have ignored his source's translation, and said it was the same thing.

In fairness to Sullivan, he's talking about the thinking that went behind this rather than the words themselves.

What if the CIA had called it "deep interrogation"? That's as close of a synonym to "sharpened" as "enhanced". And yet, "interrogation in depth" is what the British called it when they did it. Does anybody seriously think they got it from the Nazis, too?

Aside from taking a columnist's diatribe to create the first paragraph for this article, I don't think Sullivan intended it this way when he wrote his blog post. Do you think he was so worked up in this as to imagine the CIA was consulting old Nazi manuals when coming up with the name? And if so, then why didn't they use "sharpened", which appears to be an official translation as well as a much more accurate one?

I'm of the opinion that notable people who claim to oppose torture so stridently should never be forgotten -- because virtually all of them back down or hide under their beds when the circumstances change. This is the only reason I think Sullivan's position should be remembered. But it shouldn't be used here in this way. I don't think he meant it like this, which means it's not fair to Sullivan. Besides that, it's not serious enough to merit the first section of the article.

If we're going to go back into history then the real predecessors should be listed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an irate note I got from an editor years ago, outraged, furious, incensed, spitting mad, because reviewing one of my articles she'd checked my quotes from Plato: "You got it all wrong! Not even one sentence is quoted correctly!" It had not occurred to her that English translations from the Greek might differ. German is not one of my languages, but I did run Verschärfte Vernehmung past a fluent German speaker who said "enhanced interrogation" would be the best contemporary English approximation. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is now brilliant. We have an opinion columnist who has set forth a conjecture that the term "might" have come from a German source which uses a different terminology, and that is now linked to the article as some sort of reliable source, which is so wildly unspportable the article itself admits that no one knows whether the term was actually know by American officials when they coined it. This is straight POV. Move to delete this portion of the article.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and to answer the ultimate question, the actual meaning of the German term is "Intense Examination". Sullivan even missed that. [1] The German word for Interrogatation is Verhor.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Yachtsman1, and glad that you are discussing a controversial change in advance. I mention in passing that I find temperate remarks more persuasive than sarcasm (given opinion columnist Peggy Noonan's point that "the one who sounds angry looks like he is losing") but that's a matter of personal choice. To speak to the point: I think Randy2063 has it right. Sullivan is not saying the term descended from the German, like a bad inherited genetic condition. Rather, Sullivan is saying the first known use of a comparable term was the 1937 Gestapo memo. I agree with Randy2063 that there is no direct line of descent. Rather bureaucrats faced with the same verbal problem, independently came up with a similar verbal solution. Maybe in the year 2050 some prison bureaucrat in China will use the Chinese equivalent of "intense examination" as their euphamism of choice, having no knowledge of English or German, and no idea there were precedents in either language. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS--I have not before referred a dispute over article content to mediation, but if everybody wants to go that route I would be happy to oblige. It does have to be everybody, under their submission rules. My own view is that the remarks above have raised a legitimate question about the section heading "Origins of the Term." But I won't try to devise a different header until we have resolved whether that paragraph should be deleted outright. I think not, but I would abide by a mediator's recomendation. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need mediation yet. You may not realize it, but I think you just revealed why this is wrong.

It is a "comparable term" only in that it's a term for a certain class of rough interrogation. As I pointed out many times, each country had their own terms for it. To single out the Gestapo, and to attempt to lead readers to believe there is a lineage is bias.

Let's work with your "English translations from the Greek might differ." It's correct, but it really makes my point. If we found an old Greek tragedy with the line, "To be or not to be, that is the question," someone might speculate that Shakespeare got the Hamlet line from there. If the translation said, "To be or not to be, that is the investigation" then we'd say it really means the same thing even when someone else, as in your scenario, tried to say it's different.

But if the Greek had only used the phrase "that is the investigation" alone, then it would be absolutely ridiculous to say it's related to Shakespeare. Sorry, but this is what this misreading of the article is attempting to do. You've only got two words, and there are some big differences.

The root word of verschärfte is scharf, which literally means sharp. My German isn't good but Google translate shows "verschärfte" as "aggravated." The word "aggravated" is obviously more harsh. For that matter, the word "sharpened" isn't tame either.

This is about the origin of the term. Sullivan's ravings can go into another section providing that we not make more of it than what it is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Another section like Debates about whether techniques constitute "torture" ? Presumably after discussing Presidents Bush and Obama, down in the "media reactions" area? That might work. Let me think about it, and play with suitable language in my Sandbox.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Randy2063: after playing around in my sandbox to try to improve the article, I edited it as per the discussion above. I deleted Origins of the Term in its entirety, the apparent consensus being that we should wait for some definitive statement in the media of who came up with the term before creating an etymology section. Sullivan's stuff is now down in the "debates" section. It is a little out of place there too, but to the extent it is Sullivan's pov that seems to be the best home for it for now. The debates section would only get a C- from a high school debate coach: we need in particular to check Bush's memoirs and flesh out WHY he thinks it isn't torture. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bush said they weren't torture only because the lawyers told him those techniques didn't meet the legal definition. (BTW: This doesn't mean the CIA thought it wouldn't be torture under a different set of guidelines.) Interestingly enough, Bush also said the lawyers approved two other techniques as well, but he rejected those. He didn't elaborate. I assume they'll remain classified in case the need arises to consider them again. We are still at war, after all.

It is better in the debates section, although I still disagree that we can imply the term "enhanced interrogation" is related. As it is, all you've got is a line in a blog post that I think reads that way only because it was badly phrased. I don't think this is really Sullivan's POV. And I say that despite the fact that he believes in the Trig Palin birth conspiracy (which, curiously, I can't find any mention of in Wikipedia).

I still think a historical section might work, and it could fit there. It's pretty deceptive to mention the Gestapo alone, as though other countries didn't have similar techniques. It's a bit like the way slavery was depicted in old books and movies as though it was a benign institution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, on Bush, and the definition of torture, keep in mind that the U.K. has different laws, and is subject to some different treaties. For example, the court rulings that eventually ruled that the Five techniques were illegal, although not torture, would not apply here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction on Sullivan's Trig Palin conspiracy theory: I made the mistake of looking under Sarah Palin. The conspiracy theory is here: Andrew Sullivan#Palin pregnancy rumor.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. And thanks for that reference. I am not a regular reader of Mr. Sullivan's work and was unaware of his extremity. The anti-Palin rant does seem so excessive as to be the 13th strike of the clock that calls into question the first twelve.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

US Government Opinions

The statement "In addition, a new US definition of torture was issued." gives no reference, not does it state the content of this "new US definition". The whole section becomes useless unless we know what the "new definition" precisely states and by whom and how it was issued. Presumably it states or implies that waterboarding is not torture. Does this mean that waterboarding is now legal? Can I use it on my students? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhummerman (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, sort of, give a reference after the next line, although it was never a "new definition." We need to clear that up.

The definition of "torture" is murky. The Bush administration decided to fine-tune it, and the people who claim to oppose torture think it went too far.

I don't think you can slap your students either. That doesn't mean it would fall under the definition of torture to do so.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're slapping them in between waterboarding sessions and hypothermia I'd say it does. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Debates concerning effectiveness or reliability of techniques

Speculating whether information extracted through waterboarding helped a lot, helped a little, or did not help and in fact hampered, tracking down Osama Bin Laden is premature. Pro- and anti-torture partisans are each claiming vindication. The best an encyclopedia--remember this is an encycolpedia--can do at this early stage is say "accounts differ." In a month or two we will have more reliable timeline, and we can try to say what happened. In the meantime I would suggest shortening the graph simply to say "there is a debate over whether . . . " citing news articles on each side. I'll wait for a consensus before doing that though, this being intensely controversial. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This section has been around for a long time. Why was it okay when it focused on people claiming that it can't work? How would you change it? It already provides both views.

I agree that the debate will be going on for a long time.

Some who support the U.S. side of the war will want to claim vindication, and those who claim to oppose "torture" (whenever the U.S. is accused of using it, anyway) will feel the need to say it doesn't work.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy--I didn't mean the whole section, sorry to be unclear--I meant the last paragraph added in the last day or two, that begins "After the killing of Osama bin Laden . . . " ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the news concerning last paragraph is already done with by now. The overall argument isn't settled by a long shot, but I don't think the people already quoted are going to retract their statements. We do need to be careful not to overplay this. Spencer Ackerman says waterboarding played only a minor role.

I know that Senator Feinstein says it didn't help, Congressman King says that it did, and CIA Director Panetta agrees it helped to some extent. Those names could be added to the article, but I doubt the situation is going to change much from this point.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The last graph as revised by Peace01234 says: "These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting." That accurately quotes the original in the Wash. Post, but clearly the original has a typo. I hope Peace01234 will check the quote for an updated version and also, look for a mainstream source. A blog, even a Wash Post columnist blog, is not considered as dependable as a news article which has gone through the editorial vetting process.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think is a typo. If you mean "were alerting", "were alerting" means the attempts alerted them.

Regarding the citation, the title of the article states that Sargent was provided the letter as an "Exclusive" to the Washington Post; so, only Sargent at the Washington Post had access to the letter. Peace01234 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Military use of "enhanced interogation"

Randy2063 nice to see you again. I must respectfully differ with one of your edits: Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary did approve use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and the military did use them. He says so. The Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that it was that Def. Dep't (not CIA) approval of abusive treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo that then led to Abu Ghraib. Not sure why that was deleted.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I had deleted it before because they were completely different sets of techniques. They just happen to use the same term. It wouldn't be right to imply that that they're both using the same list.

They weren't kept on as long either. Alberto J. Mora raised objections in mid-January 2003, and some of those techniques were ended at that time. In fact, if you look at the interrogation logs for Mohammed al-Qahtani you'll see that the part that was leaked ends just before that date.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)