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)

Merge?

I feel this article should be merged with torture. Going over the contents, there really is no difference, and labelling it as "enhanced interrogation techniques" strikes me as an impulsively concocted justification no different from duplicating the "genocide" page and calling it "demographic population reform" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Maybe in another generation there will be a consensus that enhanced interrogation was just a euphemism for torture. But currently people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still insist that it was not torture, because John Yoo opined it wasn't, and besides if they admit it then they are admitting to war crimes. I regret that we will have to wait until these people are beyond prosecution--judged by a Higher Power--before we can fold this topic under Torture.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It could very well go the other way.

This incident of torture was committed by a group with associates that frequently participated in "anti-war" demonstrations. Members of the so-called "human rights" movement marching among them in the same parade didn't bat an eye. Considering that this group was engaged in *real* torture (nothing remotely as tame as waterboarding, abdomen strikes, slapping, etc.), there doesn't appear to be any push to drive such groups away from torture. If you're hoping for progress, you'll have to wait for generations that truly oppose torture even when their allies do it.

Another problem with the merge suggestion is that it would make the comparison to actual torture more evident.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"if they admit it then they are admitting to war crimes" -- Exactly. Letting those two decide whether this is a euphemism for torture is like letting Ed Gein decide whether he was guilty of committing murder or really just artistically expressing himself in a legit way. That aside, this isn't a military tribunal but an encyclopedia, which on that note also isn't a republican propaganda flyer.

As far as militant activists are concerned, I don't see how they're involved with Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or the debate about the validity of that name. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude--get an account. Anonymous IP contributions are often reverted by bots, and seldom given a lot of credence by actual editors. Then get some practice editing non-controversial topics.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I just wanted to throw this in here. And if anyone's going to judge me based on the timestamp assigned to my account's DB record, rather than a logical argument, they're not the type I want to enter any sort of dialog with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.25.120 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Having an account would mean other editors could recognize you better when you have more than one post. We wouldn't need to check your editing history for that.

It isn't only the militant activists who attend those demonstrations. It is also the broader so-called "human rights" movement that also claims to oppose torture, and is trying to influence what the definition of torture should be. If they can't oppose real torture when their friends and allies are doing it, then they don't oppose torture at all. Their influence on the next generation isn't going to be a good one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ehr, okay..

Militant networks posing as human rights networks and their future effects on western sociology aside, this does fit the dictionary definition of torture. Regardless of who practices it. Seems like a pretty obvious euphemism to me. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Randy2063 about other editors needing to know who you are. I would add that over time having a name as a Wikieditor accumulates clout. I have learned for instance to respect what Randy2063 says. And it encourages responsibility by giving you a good name to protect. Finally--nobody awards a Barnstar to a datestamp assigned to an account's DB record. So. Dearest cherished datestamp: get an account. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

EIT is a well-known euphemism for torture, and for wikipedia to list the term itself separately from the page on torture is to duplicate a term in an attempt by some to enforce a particular POV, especially as techniques listed here as EIT are also listed on the Torture page. Either this page should be merged with Torture, or it should be harmonised with the Torture and the United States page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear FOARP: Are you the same person who started this section as "82.95.25.120"? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling something "a well-known euphemism" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's not that well-known among the general public, and it can't be a euphemism if those who originated the term EIT don't think it was torture.

There is a range of interrogation techniques to choose from, and differing opinions as to where to draw the line. Some people claim that music in psychological operations is "torture" even if the volume isn't loud enough to damage the ears of the interrogators and guards who have to listen to it as well. Some people say the same thing about sleep disruption. Bradley Manning had to sleep without sheets, had a limited TV selection, and they call that torture. Do we let these people decide where to draw the line? I don't think so.

Many of the people who claim to oppose torture will complain about everything the U.S. does. They'll call it "torture" regardless, even though they'll turn their heads when their allies use real torture. I don't think they're the deciding authority here. It's better to explain what happened, describe the techniques, and say who the supporters and opponents were.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully differ with the reasoning but not the conclusion of Randy2063. As NBC Anchor Brian Williams said in his 5/3/11 interview with CIA Director Leon Pannetta"enhanced interrogation has aways been a kind of handy euphemism." Still a euphamism that has taken on a life and persona of its own needs its own webpage, like the euphamism "final solution to the Jewish question" which likewise has its own webpage, and has not been folded under genocide. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that may be an example of exactly the kind of problem we are talking about here: does it really make much sense to have separate pages covering both The Holocaust and The Final Solution? Likewise, does it really make any sense to have separate pages on Torture and the United States and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques? As for Randy2063's statements about EIT's nature being disputed, the dispute only seems to have arisen once US personnel started making use of these techniques. Before that, Nazi war criminals were sentenced to death for using them, US police were sent to jail for using them, and John McCain was made a national hero for resisting them. Is this really the kind of thing you think should be given play in Wiki? FOARP (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may be forgiven for parsing in a lawyer-like way, yes it does make sense. The Holocaust arguably started with anti-Semitic bullying, rocks through windows and such, in the early 1930's. It escalated into an organized program of abduction, torture and murder after about 1938, though the term "Final Solution" was not coined until the Wannsee Conference of 1942. So to be brief, the Final Solution was part of the Holocaust, but not the entirety of it. They deserve separate pages. Likewise Enhanced Interrogation was a torture program--Philip D. Zelikow, former Bush administration assistant to Condoleeza Rice emphasized that this was an organized step-by-step program of abuse--but differs from other kinds of torture, and deserves a separate page.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will forgive your lawyerly parsing if you will forgive mine: the breaking of windows does not constitute "The Holocaust", it may have preceded it, been a harbinger of it, but "The Holocaust" itself was the killing of millions, not the breaking of windows. Meanwhile, this page is being used to clothe the uncontroversially torturous nature of EIT as something other than it was. Among credible sources there is no debate, there is no controversy as to whether EIT is torture or not, any more than there is a controversy surrounding evolution, or the big bang. Of course, as is mentioned in the article, the Germans also had their own euthemism for torture: "Verschärfte Vernehmung", or "enhanced interrogation". Are you really saying that a page should be started for this, separate from the page on Nazi warcrimes? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(*sigh*) There's already been a lot of verbiage about "Verschärfte Vernehmung". I for one would welcome a stand-alone page clarifying what it was or wasn't, and detailing the Norwegian war crimes prosecution, though I haven't the expertise in either the German or Norwegian languages to do it. And I must demur from calling the torture/not torture discussion "uncontroversial." If anything it is freighted with far too much partisan bickering for an encyclopedia. One need only read the entirety of this discussion page. Best to leave it alone.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article on VV is appropriate right now. It's a relatively minor subject, and not even directly related to The Holocaust, as it was originally intended to be used on German citizens. We wouldn't even know about the term if not for it attracting Andrew Sullivan's fancy.

The Gestapo comparison is ridiculous but it says much about the manner that the controversy plays out. There's a difference between having an otherwise ordinary air conditioner set to max and leaving somebody tied up out in the snow in their underwear.

As for FOARP, of course there's debate over whether EIT is torture. Even among those who do claim waterboarding is torture, you can't find agreement about the other techniques. John McCain famously opposed waterboarding but he didn't oppose the other items on the list. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who condemn the use of rock and rap music as torture (well, when the U.S. does it, anyway).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"leaving somebody tied up out in the snow in their underwear." - which is, of course, what US interrogators actually did, except they doused them down with water first.

I can see Elihah's point of view - this is related to a historical fact - the production of legal opinions to justify torture, and how that turned out. But seriously, there is no debate among credible sources that it was anything other than torture, and to use weasel words like "the techniques" throughout the piece, when even the US government conceeds that they were torture, is diverting the piece towards a particular POV.

It is similar to the controversy over whether the sinking of the Belgrano was a lawful act of war. Whilst there may have been a controversy at the time, since both the Argentine government, navy, and indeed the comanding officer of the Belgrano accept that its sinking was lawful, there is no longer any controversy except that which exists in the minds of those who have no evidence supporting their position. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It was 41 degrees for up to 20 minutes. What some U.S. interrogators might have done on their own, or let slip, is different than what was included in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

Like it or not, "the production of legal opinions" was required to set limits to interrogation methods. That some people disagree with the CIA's limits is obvious, and would have been expected no matter what the limits were going to be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above is a NYT link to the story "Report Shows Tight C.I.A. Control on Interrogations." It's better that I explain that, considering that the NYT only gives you 20 stories per month without a subscription.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is about EIT, which (as has already been discussed in many previous talk pages) is several numerous techniques most of which would not be called torture by objective persons, really waterboarding is the only EIT technique for which there are many sources calling it torture. Even today (11/12/2011) Republican presidential candidates such as Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have gone on the record declaring that waterboarding is not torture. So the question of whether waterboarding is torture or not remains a partisan one, and it is only one of the EIT techniques. Waterboarding was only used during a limited period on three Al Qaeda terrorists, the majority of detainees who have been subjected to EIT experienced the other techniques, not waterboarding, so it is more of an exceptional method of EIT than the rule. Walterego (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sullivan

The part on "sharpened interrogation" leading to EIT is a stretch. I have removed it.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Alas, an error. Understandable error, as perhaps Yachtsman is unaware that this question was already extensively discussed, debated, parsed, argued, cited, recited, deconstructed, and reconstructed in a seemingly interminable discussion archived here. The result after a lot of tedious argument was the carefully crafted language now on the page. The paragraph used to be lower on the page and perhaps should move back down, as it probably does not deserve the prominence it has now. But the point is its what editors with different points of view finally settled on, and as the result of a carefully balanced consensus should not be disturbed. I am restoring it.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I just got tired of it. It was easier to live with it than to bicker over it. The only people reading this article nowadays are activists who need to recall the glory days of hating the Bush administration because this was one of the few claims of "torture" that they're allowed to pretend to care about.

The section still doesn't justify itself.

1. Is this the first use of the techniques? No.
2. Is this the same term? No.
3. All you've got is a claim that this is "the first use of a term comparable to 'enhanced interrogation'." Comparable to???? Do you really think "comparable to" is an important enough claim to justify putting in this article?
4. How do we really know it's the first use "comparable to"? Does Sullivan really say that?
5. And if he does say it (I'm not sure he means it), do you trust his judgment enough to know? The man has become a complete laughingstock, and you're putting his bizarre theory (assuming he's actually pushing a connection, which I'm not sure he is) in the first section of the article.

What is it you want the readers to believe? Is it that the CIA wanted to call it the "third degree" but Dick Cheney told them to hold off on a name until they found out what the Gestapo called it? That's what this section seems to be driving at.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a piece of it ought to be moved to the article on Andrew Sullivan.

Randy2063 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy--glad to see you again. It's like when my parents took us kids to Rehobeth beach every August, we stayed at the same guest house (Corner Cupboard) and every August saw same people and took up the same conversation and even the same card game (Hearts), just where we'd left off. Still--to lawyers the grudging willingness to cease bickering and live with a moderately unsatisfactory result is when the case is done. If for no other reason that the clients are no longer willing to pay. I have to say there have been language changes since last I looked --the 2nd paragraph in particular--that reek of a high school kid throwing in their two cents and worth about that. I am jammed up with Pre-Christmas stuff right now so I'll revisit the language in the period between Xmas and New Years. And may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy holiday.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Elijah: How wonderful to see you again. I note that pursuant to the discussion, which I was a party to by the way, the "consensus" was reached by you. One person does not a consensus make. You openly admit in the prior discussion that Sullivan has a POV problem, particularly because of his extremist views, and your prior version was created before you made this admission. The source is, therefore, unreliable. Randy makes the other points rather well. Sullivan's entire rant is nothing more than a strawman argument, unworthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia as a "source" for any work of scholarship. The article essentially "compares" the terms based on the subjective feelings of the author, it is an opinion piece. The Nazis used sharpened questioning, America used enhanced interrogation, thus, the Americans must have derived the term from the prior actions of the Nazis. There is not a single source to support this conjecture. Thus, we come to the ultimate question - does it belong. The answer is no, and this is the reason Randy and me want this particular section removed. EIT merits its own article, but this should not be part of the article at all. If you have a non-POV source that can trace the origin of the term EIT to the prior Nazi version, please provide it. As it stands, I think the prevailing "consensus" is that it be removed in its entirety at this time. Have a very Happy Christmas.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, Yachtsman, Sullivan's claim is supported by multiple independent sources, including historians Alan Mitchell and Robert Gellately. Conjecture or not, it is reliable enough to include. Do you have sources that dispute it? If so, please provide them as your dissenting opinion isn't good enough. The central thesis comparing U.S. policies comprising the War on Terrorism with those of Nazi Germany were popularized by Naomi Wolf in The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and in the film adaptation, The End of America. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

But what claim is Sullivan making? All we have here is that the phrase "sharpened interrogation" is somehow "comparable to" the phrase "enhanced interrogation." Do you really want to put your name on that?

The techniques themselves go way back long before WWII. The British used them, too. I doubt Naomi Wolf is claiming a direct connection.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many sources claim a direct connection. This is transcribed from Michael Ratner in "The End of America:

In one of the early parts of the Hitler regime, was really to pick up people, and put them into essentially concentration camps. And instead of calling that torture, which is what was going on, they called what they did to people, enhanced interrogation techniques [overlay: Verscharfte Vernehmng]. That term is precisely the term that the United States government uses about the way it treats people at U.S. detention camps.

As was previously pointed out in a past version, "After WWII, Nazi interrogation techniques, particularly those of German Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff, were incorporated by the U.S. military into its curriculum at its interrogation schools." Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner is not claiming a direct connection in that quote. Like Sullivan, he's only claiming that the term "sharpened interrogation" is the same as "enhanced interrogation." He probably got it from Sullivan's rant.

Hanns Scharff didn't use rough techniques. He used the ones that critics like Sullivan were claiming to prefer. Besides that, being in the Luftwaffe, Scharff wasn't technically a Nazi. Oddly enough, party members had to resign upon joining the military.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner did not get anything from Sullivan. And how will you now explain away the translation of "verscharfte vernehmng" as "enhanced interrogation" by historians Robert Gellately and Allan Mitchell? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratner is not unbiased. After the Nazis invaded the Soviet motherland, the National Lawyers Guild went so far as to support the internment of Japanese citizens, and then criticized it later after their motherland was safe. Every member of the NLG and CCR opposes torture until it becomes politically inconvenient. They're not simply left wing. They and Ratner are well beyond that.

I don't know why those historians translated it as "enhanced" but it really doesn't matter. Very simply, that is not the proper translation. You don't even need to look it up. Sullivan himself gives you what I assume to be an image of the official report from either the U.S. government, or the Nuremberg trials. It says "sharpened."

Moreover, back when the controversy over EIT first came up, but before this conspiracy theory, the German press did not translate "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" as "Verschärfte Vernehmung." They called it "Verbesserten Verhörtechniken."

But what would it mean if it translated exactly the same? Absolutely nothing. Nobody would raise an eyebrow if two organizations that interrogate prisoners had both used the phrase "interrogation techniques" to describe the process. And if they had a special version for important cases, nobody would be surprised if they both used a synonym for "enhanced." Absolutely nobody.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim made is that term "originated" from the German term, which means, quite literally, "sharp questioning" (You can look it up, your overlay is incorrect). No source can make that claim, because it is not correct. Instead, we have a POV cite that "compares" the actions of the American Government with that of the Nazis, both of which termed their interrogation methods separately. It is an opinion piece, nothing more. It is comparable to including a rant from a Conservative commentator that the term "Occupy Wall Street" has its "origins" with the "Communist Manifesto". This would be inane, but what if a movie made such a claim? Is it still correct? I don't think so. Sorry, but I have to disagree, as the "comparisons" are merely the POV of those who opposed the practice. we should not be in the business of being advocates. The entire section should be stricken.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We have at least four sources who disagree with your opinion. And there are more. Ratner is an expert on human rights law, and is an authoritative source on this subject. Etymology and the history of word usage is a standard encyclopedia subsection and it should be kept. What sources do you have that disagree with the ones presented so far? None? Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't have four sources. I don't think Sullivan means anything other than that the phrase is similar. Same with Ratner.

You can't even say the techniques come from there. They predate WWII.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a straw man-free zone. Nobody has to say the techniques came from there; all they have to say is that term was previously used to refer to torture. This is a standard etymology/usage/terminology section. And, we do have more than four sources. In Nazi Paris (2008), historian Alan Mitchell writes:

Of course, it was known that there were some instances of "enhanced interrogation" (verschärfte Vernehmung) of a captive, which meant that "one could strike him, reduce his rations." But Knochen denied that he had ever witnessed such a procedure and assumed that it remained within proper bounds. He did admit that he had heard about sessions of "waterboarding" (baignoires), but he was unaware that any deaths resulted from them...Historians may be excused for sharing Knochen's lack of comprehension, since the notion that a Gestapo chief in Paris during more than three years of the Nazi Occupation had no knowledge whatever of torture inflicted by his own men strains credulity beyond the breaking point. If there is a semantic problem at issue—is simulated drowning not a torture and is "enhanced interrogation" not a euphemism?—it pales before the awful reality that took place night after night in the cellars of Paris detention centers." (159-60)

So, that's Sullivan, Ratner and Mitchell. On to Robert Gellately... Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet you will still fail to make the argument that the "origin" of the term came from the German term for Sharpened Question. Please proceed, however. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas,

It's not the exact same phrase. At best, it's a near synonym. Even if the Gestapo had called it "Enhanced" instead of "Sharpened" it would still be irrelevant. Sometimes I have to wonder if you folks even realize what you're saying. In what way would it be of interest that the phrase is similar?

It would be one thing if the CIA called it "Yellow Bird techniques" while the Gestapo's was translated as "Yellow Beak Techniques." We'd say that was really a fascinating coincidence. But here, both organizations used simple, functional names. In what way is it of interest that they both used functional names? What are they supposed to call it? As it EIT and VV are sufficiently different that the German press didn't even translate them the same. That's because they are different.

Mitchell's book was published in 2008 -- after the controversy when critics of the U.S. claimed to oppose torture, and after Sullivan's ravings became public. There's nothing amazing that he'd translate them this way for his book.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Veritditas: I wonder if you could provide a little more detail in the citations to the other sources besides Sullivan so I can look up specific books in the U Va library? (four million books--we got everything). I can then follow their footnotes back to their original sources, eventually to craft some new language and better footnoting in an effort to answer some of the concerns of Randy & Yachtsman.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, did these sources express the same degree of profound amazement that interrogation was called by the German word for "interrogation," and that special interrogations had an adjective before the name?

What did these sources think of this astounding coincidence? And would they really want their names and reputations associated with the unmasking of this shocking and deeply sinister connection?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Have followed the discussion a bit, so wanted to just drop in with a comment/question. Reading the sources, the key point they take up does not look to be about the similarity of the two phrases "sharpened interrogation" and "enhanced interrogation", but rather what the two phrases is describing. Like Randy have pointed out before, the terminology conclusions made from two similar-looking phrases does not mean that much, so my question is then, why is the section on history in the wp article focusing solely on the terminology, and not the history of the underlying technique being described? Belorn (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Belorn, you and Randy2063 raise a very good point that I had not focused on before: I think the section heading which was "Terminology and History" was misleading. It suggested a direct genealogy, a kind of inheritance from the German language to the American language which I don't think any historian claims. The history of the techniques themselves is further down, in discussing Chinese and Korean techniques of torture for extracting fasle confessions later adopted for counter-torture training in the SERE program. All this Terminology section says is that the Germans earlier had a comparable interrogation program described with similar words. So I deleted the "and History" from the section head, in the view that on this at least everybody would likely concur: there is (as yet) no clear historical connection.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?

All you've got is that both interrogation sets were labeled with a word (or a synonym) for "interrogation" or "hearing" preceded by an adjective. There is absolutely nothing else to this. This is not some strange coincidence. It's not even a minor curiosity. There is nothing remarkable about it in the least. You need to explain why anyone should think it's otherwise.

Half the people who read this first section will come away ignorantly thinking (or wishing, in the case of America's critics) that there's a real link of some sort when you know yourself that there isn't one. The other half will snicker at the obvious descent into fervent Godwinism. I've certainly been accused of overdoing Nazi analogies myself, and probably right here with respect to the critics of the American side of the war, but this one is pretty ridiculous.

Did the Germans have a comparable interrogation system? Yes. They all did. The British did, the Americans did, and, prior to the 1920s or 1930s, the police did. It is pure bias to mention the Gestapo, which started this program prior to the war to be used on German citizens.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a improvement, but what I as a reader would mostly like to see is a section describing similar interrogation systems used in the world that also apply the form of torture used that leaves no physical marks, and/or has the "no blood, no shame" policy. Belorn (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy2063--I learned a new word: Godwinism. Thought at first it was William Godwin who asserted apparently that: "[G]overnment is a corrupting force in society, perpetuating dependence and ignorance, but that it will be rendered increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. Politics will be displaced by an enlarged personal morality as truth conquers error and mind subordinates matter." But for the life of me I could not understand how that had anything to do with enhanced interrogation; indeed the opposite seemed true, it seems like evidence of reverse evolution. Then a few clicks later I see it more likely refers to humorist Mike Godwin, inventer of Godwin's Law, that the more protracted an internet discussion the more likely a reference to Nazis. So true, so true. I see what you mean Belorn about analogous "no blood, no shame" policies though I am not sure a full exegesis of that belongs here: it might better be a link, referenceing to a full discusion in the article on Torture. I'll ponder a bit more. Also I can't get to the library to find out what historians are saying until after the New Years break. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what's so special about two interrogation sets being named with a near-synonym for the word "interrogation" and an adjective.

Belorn, I agree that a section on the history could make more sense but another article on rough interrogation, or a subsection in torture, would be better. The London Cage is a better example for this than what the Gestapo did.

But you're wrong in thinking that "no blood, no shame" was the policy. The CIA was simply trying to figure out where rough interrogation ends and real torture begins.

The people who claim to oppose torture sometimes (when they're cornered, anyway) will say that they'd rather we get another 9/11 than resort to torture. Well, fine. But would they rather get another 9/11 than that the CIA use stress positions? Well, that's one of the EITs. Clearly if we're going to risk another 9/11 then we'd better find out where real torture begins and draw a firm line against it there. That's what the CIA's lawyers did. While some may say waterboarding is over the line, it's an opinion. A lot of the people who make that claim are willing to get waterboarded themselves at some activists' "anti-war" demonstration. But those same people would not be willing to subject themselves to a demonstration of the real torture that our enemies use. That may be a better test.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Going to be frank here. I mentioned that policy because one of the sources in the now Terminology section mentioned it. In the sourced article the author makes a comparison between the concept of Enhanced interrogation, and a Soviet policy he translated as "no blood, no shame". This is separated from my own own personal opinion. Personal opinions on the subject of CIA intention behind Enhanced interrogation, or the effectiveness of it to prevent 9/11 does not belong on talk pages. I mean, I could mention the book Freakonomics and Optimism bias about behavior theory on why people act like they do in the face of risk, or I could point to Bruce Schneier's articles/books on the effectiveness of post-9/11 actions against terrorism compared to pre-9/11 actions. Question is, would that improve this article? I call that as a No.

So, back to the subject at hand (the article). I think its right that torture should be extended. While people might end up here and wanting to know the historical context of people using similar techniques, that should be either a See also, or a summery section. Belorn (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then that's Horton's personal opinion. He's got more than just a leftward POV, is often interviewed on extremist media. In his defense, I'll say that he's not off-the-rails, and he's not in the Andy Worthington category, but that's about it. His translation of EIT is worth about as much as Sullivan's but I don't think he intended to say it's an uncanny translation the way that this article seems to be straining to do.

I wasn't commenting to convince you of the effectiveness of EIT. I was simply trying to explain why "no blood, no shame" isn't an accurate description of the CIA's legal position.

My only caution about EIT being in the Torture article would be that you'll bring the question of it being torture into that article. A lot of people say it is, and a lot of people say it isn't. There's no U.S. court ruling on it yet.

BTW: For similar examples of rough interrogation, aside from the London Cage, there's also the Five techniques.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it should go into Interrogation instead. That article needs a lot of work.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

After further thought, I do think it definitely belongs in Interrogation rather than Torture. That article does cover torture, which will please some. It will allow us to put EIT, VV, the Five techniques (which has a court ruling making it illegal, but not torture), and the London Cage all in one place. You can't do that with Torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)