Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques

Merge with Torture ?

This Page should be merged with Torture. Lets be fair, everyone agrees this is a euphemism --MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough reliable sources agree that this is a euphemism, but it is a good idea to have this article, because it discusses the euphemism, its creation and ramifications, as well as the associated torture program carried out under the umbrella of this euphemism. That being said, I would support creating a new article that encompasses all alleged human rights violations carried out by the US government between 2001 and 2009 with this article devoted solely to the euphemism "EIT" (I made a similar suggestion here), but as another user noted, this article probably is that article. Take a look at Torture and the United States and United States war crimes, too.-Ich (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Ich, this instance is a distinct historical phenomenon, which has been, and will continue to be studied and commented on, therefore merging with the general torture article would be inappropriate.Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

British complicity in the Binyin Mohammed case

I believe that it is the case that the coverage of the High Court case on releasing documents relating to British complicity in the Binyin Muhammed case omits a significant detail. I believe that between the UK Foreign Secretary claiming to the court that the US had strongly requested the non-release of documents and their eventual release to the defence lawyers, it came to light that the UK had actually asked the US to make such a request for the UK's own protection. It may not be wholly relevant to this article, I recall that the details are in one of the refs in the Binyin Muhammed article. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

bias

Enhanced interrogation techniques is a euphemism for the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees

Okay thats biased.This comment left unsigned by IP.

Courts and international bodies have ruled that it IS legally torture. Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

@WikiWisePowder:, it would be helpful if you said WHY you think the article is not neutral. I am only peripherally involved with the article (on my watchlist, otherwise uninvolved). Pincrete (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: the language in the article may be direct, but it is buttressed by citations from both sides of the political spectrum. And I might add, this talk page archives offer a lengthy history of wrestling over each sentence, each phrase, often each word by generations of previous editors. So a POV objection needs to quote a specific sentence or wording and say why it is out of line.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Decision not to prosecute

I am dissatisfied with the paragraph suggesting Obama decided not to prosecute because he might himself be prosecuted. That suggests self-interest and fear -- rather than statesmanship, preserving the presidency itself -- motivated his decision. On the other hand, Obama himself has never explained why. Other than the offensively glib slogan "we must look forward not backward." If we never look backward, if yesterday has no consequences, today we have no law. The murder was yesterday, you have no right to punish me today. Let's look forward not backward. It is nonsense and he knows it. But absent a better explanation we are stuck with the commentators'. I suppose we'll have to wait until his memoirs or Atty General Holder's for a less partisan, less cynical take. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the sentence speculating as to his motives. I see no reason for a 'WP voice' reason, and yes, we are left with the speculations of commentators, though I personally don't find it difficult to understand that Obama might think that the pain would not be worth the gain. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

'Methods used' in lead and 'see also's

User:Oranjelo100 I have just rolled back your series of wdits. My reasons were threefold.

Firstly and mainly, are the additional methods used referred to in the specific source used at the end of that sentence, which is p.128 of a book? If not we would need refs for each claimed method, If the answer is yes, I apologise for the rollback. I hope you understand that we need to know that the claim is in that page of that source, not just that it was truly used.

Secondly, it is probably not practical to put ALL methods in the lead, we have to make a judgement as to which are most important/most used/most often mentioned in sources, and I would welcome other's input on which should be in the lead. A more complete account could of course be in the body.

Thirdly, I removed your 'see also's apart from the fact that your text was not neutrally phrased, it isn't practical to 'see also' every Guantanamo inmate, I don't know how many of these have articles, but I suspect dozems, if not hundreds. If there is a 'list' article that would be a better way to link to the names. Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)