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)

Keeping the lede a lede, putting detail in article

One common technique was use of stress positions such as pinioning somebody's arms behind them and hanging them from their wrists so their feet don't touch the floor, aka crucifiction. It is what killed the thieves on crosses on either side of Jesus by asphyxiation, and likewise killed at least one detainee for which the Justice Department is still contemplating prosecution (autopsy reports indicate as many as 22 are asserted to have died from this kind of abuse)). Use of 'stress positions' was both a CIA and DoD abuse. It is still unclear who carried out the waterboarding--it appears to have been DoD personnel or contractors under supervision of the CIA. So to be brief, we don't have enough information to say who did or did not do what. The lede is best used as a brief introduction to enhanced interrogation. The body of the article is where details can be hashed out. I say this with respect to Gonamyi , the new editor who initially introduced the detail 'waterboarding" into the lede to begin with. Out of kindness to a newbie I dressed it up, which then caused Randy2063 to add more, and so forth--but I should not have, I should have just taken it out the first time. Details belong in the article. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the details belong in the body of the article but I think it should be established right away that CIA and DoD use different sets of techniques. I'm not aware of any DoD personnel handling the waterboarding with the CIA. Even if that could be true, it was still a CIA operation under CIA authority.

Manadel al-Jamadi was a CIA detainee. He wasn't killed by any authorized enhanced interrogation technique. Nor was he hanging with his feet off the floor.

Your ACLU link has a 404 error at the moment. This is a major gripe I have with both the ACLU and the DoD. There's no excuse to be dumping this stuff. This isn't 1995.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The lost link wasn't the ACLU's fault this time. It's available here. You missed the dash at the end.

Most of these deaths appear to have involved injuries from being beaten. (Some terrorists have a bad habit of fighting even after they've been captured.) While the methods of containing them might have been inappropriate, that's not a matter of enhanced interrogation techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to my cite. The two deaths that the Justice Department is still investigating for prosecution are as follows: 1) Manadel al-Jamadi: "[a]ccording to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the (Abu Ghraib) prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead . . . [I]nvestigators concluded that al-Jamadi had died of asphyxiation and "blunt force injuries." 2) Gul Rahman's "hands were shackled over his head, he was roughed up and doused with water, according to several former CIA officials. The exact circumstances of Rahman's death are not clear, but the Afghan was left in the cold cell on the morning of Nov. 20. He was naked from the waist down, said two former U.S. officials. Within hours, he was dead. His death . . . led to a review of CIA interrogation policies 'and forced the agency to change those procedures'" (so much for 'if they die, you're doing it wrong': this one evidently died from the usual procedures). At Bagram, also under DoD, prisoners were shackled by their arms to the ceiling of their cells and their legs beaten so they could not stand, as the Bagram torture and prisoner abuse Wikipedia article details. At least two died. Three Guantanamo detainee deaths originally called suicides based on falsified autopsy reports, now have been established to have died of asphyxiation from having rags shoved down their throats, in apparent imitation of the movie A Few Good Men. In that movie Jack Nicholson playing the camp commander memorably shouts at Tom Cruise playing a JAG lawyer, the line: "you can't handle the truth!"

All this is detail exceeding the scope of this particular encylopedia article. I mention it only to say that people were tortured to death in both DoD and CIA prisons, some by asphyxiation. We don't know how many given the predilection for cover-ups and falsified autopsies, and it is questionable whether even some future Truth Commission will be able to sort exactly how many were tortured, how many died of the torture, and what sort of torture it was.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say al-Jamadi didn't die from asphyxiation. I said he wasn't tied with his arms holding him off the floor. One method is legal, the other isn't.

I'm not aware of any credible cases of falsified autopsy reports. Look at all those reports via the ACLU link. They're based almost exclusively on reports from military doctors. None of those doctors felt any need to risk their own careers (both military and medical) to cover up a crime. The ACLU link demonstrates pretty clearly that they call it as they see it.

IIRC, the Bagram guards used civilian police techniques they'd learned separately, and didn't realize it wasn't legal for the Army. It was wrong, but those things happen in war and bureaucracy.

With all the troops overseas, that a few guards are personally violent, or simply lose control of their emotions, shouldn't be a surprise. IIRC, there were over 10,000 people captured in Afghanistan in the first year of the war. That some of those detainees would be extremely violent, and legitimately require physical force, should also not be a surprise. There was never any chance that the number of detainee deaths would be zero.

The Harpers story doesn't have much going for it other than a flimsy conspiracy theory from a few guards who've never been to "Camp No" and have no genuine idea that anything goes on there. The network reporters rejected the story when it came to them. Any member of Congress could have asked for details, and demanded hearings if there was anything to it. Nearly every Democrat would have jumped at the chance for an Abu Ghraib replay before the 2008 election. What doctor would risk his career over that? I simply don't see it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a graph on the Senate Armed Services Committee Report, since in the course of our conversation I noted it was not discussed in the article. I won't go all Jack Nicholson on you, but I would deferentially point out it was an Armed Services Committee Report, and bipartisan, and addressed ONLY enhanced interrogation as practiced by the military, not the CIA.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look.

I'd take "bipartisan" with a grain of salt. It was led by Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, and (formerly the Democrats' favorite Republican) John McCain.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: According to one of the references, the "abuses" Rumsfeld authorized included military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions. We already knew that but it's funny to see them stretch this.

"The investigation did not focus on the CIA's treatment of detainees, or the agency's operation of a network of secret prisons."

This is why we need clear separation between military and CIA techniques.

One other reference is from Jason Leopold. He's not RS. The site isn't RS without attribution, but an attribution to Leopold's opinions isn't worth anything.

On "bipartisanship," out of 17 votes we know they had at least four Republicans voting for it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Leopold not RS? Looked up RS--République solidaire - a new French party; Rolling Stone, a magazine . . . when I followed the Leopold link you kindly provided I see he is midway between journalist and blogger. So I assume he falls into the Andrew Sullivan category of ranting I mean questionable source. . Ranting source = rs? Leopold's was the most detailed summary of the Senate Report that tracked its language but I will replace that if I can with other more mainstream sources, and thanks for the heads up.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision to restore chronological order?

This page has gotten very confusing: several editors have dropped in topics and created new sections with no regard to when things happened. The Yoo memos (which don't belong here in such detail as they are much better explained on a different Wikipage) for instance, are near the end rather than up in the initial decision to authorize enhanced inter. where they belong. I could try revising the page in my sandbox to put everything in chronological order and reposting it, unless there are objections? Please let me know your views: Yea or nay? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. I'll hold off on changes until you're done. If I do make changes before that, I'll either let you know, or you can assume I intended for them to be temporary.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Re-reading the page, I see a glaring omission: I need to get hold of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's memoirs so I can put together the chronology and also offer a better account of why they authorized the techniques and why they think they are not torture. That will take me some time, so in the meantime feel free to fix whatever you think needs fixing. When I am ready, I can simply lift the entirety, copy-and-paste into my sandbox and start the revisions.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but Courting Disaster by Marc Thiessen is probably a better bet.

He was Bush's speechwriter during this time. I think he was given access to a lot of the details, which made him knowledgeable about the actual thought process. In the question of, at what point rough interrogation becomes "torture," I don't think it's all that clear that it has to begin with waterboarding.

I think some, if not most or all, of the interrogators had gone through it themselves. I don't think they'd signed up for having their fingernails pulled out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree with you. "Stress positions" aka crucifiction can be worse than waterboarding. Both Jesus and the thieves on either side of him died from slow asphyxiation, from being hung with their arms pinioned behind their back as their chest collapsed (see Medical Account of Crucificton here) Several detainees died the same way, and ironically the practice of 'crucifracture', that is breaking the legs so the victim can no longer push himself up to take a breath, which killed the two thieves, was exactly what killed the detainees Habibullah and Dilawar at Bragam. As to the SERE techniques, the Senate report points out the difference between being waterboarded voluntarily as an exercise in a mock-prison with a password so you can stop it any time, and being waterboarded involuntarily 183 times. It was not SERE instructors doing the waterboarding according to the Senate Report: the people doing it were personnell who had received a short demonsration course courser at Fort Bragg (report at page xiv). I'll look at Theissen as you suggest.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's asking a bit much of stress positions to say that it's torture because of what Habibullah and Dilawar went through. Many normally mild interrogation methods could become torture if the person is already injured and in physical pain before it even begins.

I don't remember the source but I remember reading that the CIA's version of EIT required it could only be used on detainees in good physical and mental health. I'd guess that the DoD instructions may read the same way, but that the interrogators fouled up or didn't understand their responsibilities.

I've never heard of a password at SERE. It's to either to endure, or to sign zee paper. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed basically had those same options.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)