Jump to content

Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:644:0:dbd0:4955:8bbe:7425:a9c5 (talk) at 16:28, 11 August 2017 (→ACLU lawsuit against torture psychologists: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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 the method 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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Enhanced interrogation techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACLU lawsuit against torture psychologists

The two psychologists who helped the CIA develop their torture program are being sued by some of the victims, with the help of the ACLU. Their defense is that they were just doing their jobs, like the company that supplied Zyklon B to the Nazis.

This could probably be added to the part of the article discussing prosecution. 2601:644:0:DBD0:4955:8BBE:7425:A9C5 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&oldid=795039388"