This page is designed to create an ongoing list of every reliable source that has stated whether or not waterboarding should be categorized as torture. If you find a source that you think should be added to this list, please add the source and note the addition on the Wateboarding talk page.
115 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., 115 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
Comment This letter is a form of astroturfing and should be treated collectively as one source, not 115 separate sources. See our own Wikipedia article on "Techniques": "It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low." Here we have a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom letter to the USAG. It's astroturfing, and I've adjusted the total number of sources listed at the top of this section accordingly. Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources signed this letter of their own choice as far as anyone knows, and the letter is public. Therefore it is safe to treat the letter as a representation of their views. Whether the letter constitutes astroturfing is irrelevant. However, it is also clear that this is not astroturfing. Astroturfing is about seek[ing] to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior (see first sentence of Astroturfing); it does not apply to just any pre-written letter. There is no intent to deceive the readers of the letter into believing this was grassroots activity. This is simply a signed letter. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Through their published writings available on the Internet, their professional associations and their chosen research projects, Richard Abel, Bruce Ackerman, Madelaine Adelman, José E. Alvarez, Paul Amar, Fran Ansley and Michael Avery have all demonstrated a distinctly left-of-center perspective. For example, three of them have made an effort to convey the notion that abuses of police powers are the rule, rather than the exception. These are seven of the eight law professors signing the letter to Gonzalez whose last names start with the letter "A." The eighth, Catherine Adcock Admay of Duke University, doesn't have enough information about her available online to make a determination. If these law professors are a representative sample, these 115 law professors are at least as politically motivated as a John Yoo or a Michael Mukasey. So the answer is, "Yes, they 'have axes of their own to grind, and allegiances of their own to serve.' " Neutral Good (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this makes that much difference, but I counted 115 signatories to the letter, so I changed "100" above to "115". —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The law covers many areas, I dont see any reason to believe that all of these professors are experts in Military law. I would hardly think a faimly law professor or a bankruptcy expert (while an expert in their field) is not an expert in Military law as to if waterboarding is torture.76.27.216.188 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John McCain. According to Republican United States SenatorJohn McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. [1]
reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."[1]
Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: indenting/striking Graham, he didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Neutral Good (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. ((cite journal)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion.Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immersion is considered a form of waterboarding when it causes the victim to experience the sensations of drowning. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considered by who? Partisans trying to score a cheap political point against the Bush Administration? Immersion is not waterboarding. Indenting/striking the State Department, it didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Neutral Good (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Evan J. Wallach published in the Washington Post: "The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed."[2]Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he didn't say, "Waterboarding is torture." See my comments below regarding Wallach's article. Neutral Good (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More references that immersion can be a waterboarding technique (these two references suggest that it is in fact the modern CIA method):
"Descriptions of water boarding as it is apparently currently applied differ very little from the techniques applied by the Japanese. One investigator describes water-boarding as a technique “...in which a prisoner is stripped, shackled and submerged in water until he begins to lose consciousness...” Another source says “...a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.”[3]
"U.S. interrogators have used the technique of "waterboarding" to break the will of detainees. They are strapped to a board and immersed repeatedly in water, just short of drowning. As anyone knows who has ever come close to drowning or suffocating, the oxygen-starved brain sends panic-signals that overwhelm everything else."[4]
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical controlInertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent deathInertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.
Indenting/striking US Law 18/2340, it didn't say waterboarding is torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore
Indenting/striking UNCAT, it didn't say waterboarding is torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If members of the Bush Administration are to be discredited due to their alleged political bias, then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat and one of the administration's most strident critics long before the waterboarding debate began, should also be discredited due to political bias. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't discredit and eliminate people as sources that aren't sources. The Bush administration has no public stance on this question. Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: indenting/striking Carter, he didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Do not delete it, in case other sourcing turns up. Lawrence Cohen 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mississippi Supreme Court. [2]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.
Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge, former JAG, [3] states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture." Also commented on Tokyo War Crimes Trials: "The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."[2]
Comment: Wallach's first comment does not reference waterboarding specifically, but only mentions "certain types of water-based interrogation." This isn't specific enough. In his second comment, the trials of Japanese soldiers who waterboarded US POWs during World War II had also brutally beaten those soldiers with their hands and feet. All of these actions in the aggregate were described as "torture." Again, this isn't specific enough to the subject of waterboarding to support your unequivocal "Waterboarding is torture" claim. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are fighting a strawman argument - Wallach never said that US POWs weren't beaten, what he said was "The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding." I recommend you read the cited article that he wrote which was published in the Washington Post. You may still personally disagree with his assessment, and are of course free to provide citations to other reliable sources that also disagree with his assessment. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wallach never actually states "waterboarding is torture." He mentions several previous instances in which other persons described some water-based interrogation technique as torture. But he doesn't state that in his own opinion, waterboarding is torture. Furthermore, he states very clearly that there are several different types of waterboarding. "That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.' Notice that he said "usually." He didn't say "always." Finally, Wallach is a judge in the International Court of Trade. This is not a court that hears criminal cases. The utility of this source is badly compromised. Neutral Good (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wallach never actually states "waterboarding is torture." You're right - he never uses those three specific words together; instead he writes an article titled "Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime", which is 1090 words long, and uses the word torture eight times - approximately once per paragraph. His point of view is clear to any English speaker.
"Finally, Wallach is a judge in the International Court of Trade." He is also a former Judge Advocate General in the Nevada National Guard. He used to present annual lectures for Military Police talking about their legal obligations regarding prisoners. His article has been published by a reliable source. What exactly is the dispute here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He never says, "Waterboarding is torture." That exactly is the dispute here. The transcript of the Glenn Beck Program where Congressman (and attorney) Ted Poe says unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture also uses the word "torture" about eight times. But neither Ted Poe nor Glenn Beck said, "Waterboarding is torture." Thanks Chris. Neutral Good (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wallach in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law: "Historical analysis demonstrates U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions.".[3] As a sidenote: he also writes for the International Law of War Association which has a few other articles on the military tribunals and prosecution of Japanese interrogators after WWII. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) and is an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.", "as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool" and "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".[5][6]
Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
Joseph Galloway (famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam) "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes." "Four decades ago, as a reporter in Vietnam, I saw what it was like. When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto the rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs start to fill with water, that is torture."[7]
Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."
NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.
Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.
"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."
Comment: Notice that Kiriakou said, "Waterboarding may be torture." He did not say, "Waterboarding is torture." He belongs in the same column with Thomas Hartmann and Michael Mukasey, not in this column. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."
Harry Reid, US Senate Majority leader: "Waterboarding is torture. It started in the 1492 inquisition. It's a hideous process. It's something that America should not be associated with." Source.
Comment: If members of the Bush Administration are to be discredited due to their alleged political bias, then Harry Reid, a Democrat and one of the administration's most strident critics long before the waterboarding debate began, should also be discredited due to political bias. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A History of Torture" (Scott 1940) states that waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual."
Washington Post,"Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002" "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War," and Lindsey Graham "now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal."
US court: In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."[2] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[2][8]
Chase J. Nielson, who was captured in the Doolittle raid, testified at the trial of his captors, "I was given several types of torture... I was given what they call the water cure." and it felt "more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[2] Note: although Nielson called the torture "water cure" the technique was actually waterboarding; the water cure involves being forced to drink large quantities of water, not simulated drowning.
Comment: If "the technique was actually waterboarding" rather than the "water cure," I look forward to seeing your WP:RS. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An amusing objection given that Nielson explicitly said it felt like drowning, but I will oblige with a reliable source: Judge Evan Wallach in the Washington Post called it waterboarding [2]Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Nielson on the exact technique: "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again."[3] That is clearly waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The torture debate in America (Greenberg, Cambridge University Press) "Instances of homicide, rape, so-called 'waterboarding,' and various other means of torture have been corroborated and reported by various national media sources."[4]
British Law The Double Tenth trials of Japanese interrogators in British Singapore included prosecutions for waterboarding.[3]
U.S. Air Force waterboarding by North Koreans "Air Officer Tells of Torture By Foe, New York Times, 6 August, 1953 in which USAF Lt. Col. William Harrison describes being "...tortured with the ‘water treatment’ by Communist North Koreans.” As Harrison described it: 'They used the water treatment. They would bend my head back, put a towel over my face and pour water over the towel.'"[3]
The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614: An Anthology of Sources "The forms of torture in the Spanish Inquisition - and there is no evidence they ever changed - were the toca, wherein large quantities of water were pouted down the defendant's nose and mouth to simulate drowning"[9]
Interesting article on Newsvine. Read here. Newsvine itself is not a reliable source, but this article is fascinating, with numerous historical citations detailing the history of waterboarding as torture. There are at least 3-4 sources here that can be gleaned for use here, to expand this list. Someone feel up to this? I don't have time unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end." Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Armitage, former US deputy secretary of state, was waterboarded during SERE training. Said: "Of course water-boarding is torture, I can't believe we're even debating it. We shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff."[4]
Henri Alleg, water-boarded by the French military during the Algerian War, wrote: "I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. My body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. The fingers of my hands shook uncontrollably. 'That's it! He's going to talk!' said a voice."[5]
Matt Frei, said "The debate should not be about whether water-boarding is torture or not. It is."[6]
Cristián Correa, Senior Associate, International Center for Transitional Justice: "The whole debate about if waterboarding is torture or not seems artificial to me, because it is very clear that drowning detainees during interrogation is a way of intentionally inflicting severe physical suffering for obtaining from him information or a confession."[7]
Richard E. Mezo, was subjected to waterboarding during his U.S. Air Force training in 1963.[8]
Marty Lederman,"To say that this is not severe physical suffering -- is not torture -- is absurd. And to invoke the defense that what the Spanish Inquisition did was worse, that we use a more benign, non-torture form of waterboarding -- after all, we don't stomp on the victim's chest! -- is obscene. And yet here we have a United States official invoking that justification today, in sworn testimony to Congress, without betraying the slightest hint of self-awareness of how grotesque it is . . . and no one so much as blinked, so inured are we to this discourse by now."[9][10]
Jack Balkin Waterboarding is torture. And torture is a war crime. If the White House has admitted to waterboarding, it has admitted to both.[11]
Hillary Clinton (her 2008 presidential campaign's position as stated by Lee Feinstein, national security director for her 2008 presidential campaign).[13]
Louise Arbour The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture.[14]
Prof. Bent Sørensen, IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture, confirms that waterboarding is indeed a form of torture.[15]
Cambridge Dictionary, which states "a form of torture (= extreme physical or mental pain used to make someone give information) in which a person is held facing upwards while water is poured in large quantities over their face. This gives the person the feeling that they are drowning (= unable to breathe and dying)."
Macmillan Dictionary, which states "a way of torturing someone by putting a cloth over their face and pouring water over it to make them believe they are drowning."
American Heritage Dictionary, which states "1. An interrogation technique, widely considered a form of torture, in which a person is restrained, usually by being strapped to a board with the feet higher than the head, and immersed in or doused with water to the point of drowning."
Dictionary.com, Google rank #1 on search for "dictionary", calls waterboarding "a harsh interrogation technique", not "torture". --Westwind273 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com has the word "torture" if you scroll down further.-Ich(talk) 11:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster, Google rank #2 on search for "dictionary", calls waterboaring "an interrogation technique", not "torture". --Westwind273 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster says "an interrogation technique usually regarded as a form of torture in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning" as of May 2019.-Ich(talk) 11:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Dictionary, Google rank #3 on search for "dictionary", calls waterboarding "an interrogation technique", not "torture". --Westwind273 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and previously the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, US Department of Justice. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that "Yoo put his desire to accommodate the client above his obligation to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, and that he therefore committed intentional professional misconduct."[10]
Alberto Gonzales, Dean of Belmont University College of Law, and former United States Attorney General. Also former Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Cruz, US Senator and former Texas Solicitor General. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jose Rodriguez, former Director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ted Poe, conservative commentator Glenn Beck, and conservative pundit Jim Meyers have all stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's a good idea to start adding general commentators and pundits to the lists? If you do, I'm sure both sides can find many thousands of citations. What do you think the advantages and disadvantages of this are? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that pundits are not reliable sources? Not that I particularly like them as sources but I do not think that the policy says that they are unreliable.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Thiessen, author of Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack (2010).
Huckabee, McCain, and Paul all outright oppose waterboarding. That leaves Tancredo, who is unelectable but enthusiastic about torture, .... --RTRimmel
That's not a quote from Mirengoff, but from a non-notable blogger. THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Miregoff called it a 'non-christian' technique. Whatever that means. Would you like to setup another catergory. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The birther editor of a conservative magazine believe that waterboarding is not torture and that Obama needs to provide his birth certificate. Isn't Human Events is on the same level as a tabloid?
Jerry Wages, naval commander, Vietnam veteran, went through SERE training where he was waterboarded.[12]THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another human event's source.
James Zumwalt, Vietnam and Gulf War veteran and writer on national security issues.[12]THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB that Zumwalt claims to "continue to get e-mails from active duty and retired naval aviators who were waterboarded in SERE training as recently as 2001. They, like Wages, don’t believe it is torture."[12]THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waterboarding may or may not be torture (9+)[edit]
Note about this section: I think some or all of these sources would probably agree that it's "generally" a form of torture. Our problem here is that some don't want "generally" to be part of the main definition. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teo Molin notes the historical difference between CIA techniques of waterboarding and use of waterboarding as form of torture.[20]
Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General, former justice, Texas Supreme Court.[21]
AG: Dan, when I served in the administration, the position of the administration was that under certain conditions and circumstances, this technique(waterboarding) would be lawful.
Note that these are the only people who are in a position to both know the law, and to have reviewed the exact procedure. I've come across other sources that say the USDOJ approved it, but this is what I have for the moment.
FWIW, that same source shows that a few members of Congress had reviewed this as well.
I'm unstriking that text, as the comments don't apply. The U.S. legal position means that it's in compliance with UNCAT. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This item is original research. The article says that waterboarding was "cleared with agency lawyers". Authorizing a technique is not the same as giving an opinion on the record about whether the technique is torture. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to bicker with that. I'd say the phrase "cleared with agency lawyers" cannot be interpreted any other way. They can't clear anything if it's actually torture.
That said, a lot of the "Waterboarding generally is torture" camp two sections up is much more clearly OR than this.
Now that you mention it, after a quick look it appears to me that it might be as much as 75% original research. If we really were to simply tally raw sources, we'd have to pull some stuff out first.
Former U.S. Attorney for SDNY, former Mayor of NYC, and possibly next president of the United States Rudolph Giuliani said that he isn't sure whether WB is torture. His wording indicates his belief that it would be torture in some cases but not in others. [22] Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [23] superficially defines waterboarding as torture. However, the devil is in the details. It defines waterboarding as "continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning" and, as we've seen, there are waterboarding techniques that don't involve immersion. The only way to read the SEP in an objective manner is to say that this reliable source isn't sure. Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not torture is legal in the United States is irrelevant to it's status as being considered torture by the world. This is also in the wrong section, since it makes no assertation that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, the only torture-related language is: "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War," that Lindsey Graham "now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal." I'll add this to the appropriate section above and strike here to avoid confusion. Lawrence Cohen 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're mischaracterizing what I'd said. It's never been my position that torture is legal.
I have not suggested that Wikipedia needs to say that it's absolutely not torture.
The "world" hasn't really given a legal opinion. They may say that they're opposed to it but we haven't heard about rulings against comparable use on unlawful combatants by their intelligence agencies.
Listen, since we keep saying it: We don't need and never will need a "legal" opinion. End of story. "General encyclopedia", and your opinion on sourcing requirements as stated here is completely at odds with what our actual sourcing policies are. Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's because the term unlawful combatant has no legal status anywhere else in the world? The U.S. administration picked a side in a civil war, and then declared that any prisoners they captured in that war weren't protected by the Geneva convention, even though they were fighting as part of an organised milita force within the borders of their own country. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uniform? Chain of command? Follow the other rules? ... There are few of the rules that they have not broken. htom (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia then why is everybody else listing legal sources?
Clearly, if Wikipedia were to say it's always torture without exception, and then it lists a bunch of partisan lawyers as references, it's making a statement on the law.
Sources that say waterboarding is not torture are partisan? Partisan against whom? The US government has no stance on whether it is torture. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, put the "partisan" identification aside for the moment. It's not important to my point.
I'll say it again without that: Clearly, if Wikipedia were to say it's always torture without exception, and then it lists a bunch of lawyers as references, it's making a statement on the law.
I don't think you can deny that. The reader is going to think the article says it has legal standing.
Where will the Wikipedia article have legal standing? This entire line of reasoning is comical. It presumes only exceptionally dull-witted people in the United States are reading, because all these sources are American in this section. Are you concerned that there are legal ramifications in the United States if this article says waterboarding is torture? If so: Wikipedia doesn't give a shit. Really. Thats not how it works. Lawrence Cohen 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the article would have legal standing. I'm only saying that readers might hope for some degree of quality here. For example, the article on the Moon explicitly says "average" when talking about its average distance from the Earth. As long as we're going through all this trouble, we ought to be just as explicit here.
I thought you're the one who does not want this article to say "waterboarding is generally considered to be torture." Why is that important to you if not to add some point on the legal aspects?
My only point is that we can't say a thing about legality in general terms, because that is unique to each nation. We don't cater to an audience of any one country here. This is why all this nonsense from one side about legal interpretations of torture vis a vis waterboarding is a complete waste of time. If we have a ton of reliable sources that say that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth, and six people in reliable sources that insist that Everest may or may not be the tallest mountain, are we seriously going to say that the Everest's historical status is disputed? Preposterous. Would this even be questioned, that waterboarding is torture, based on the available sourcing, if it wasn't an epic piece of the current American election cycle? Wikipedia is not a political tool, and its role is not for information control. Its sole and only role is to report sourced facts per its internal policies. If that aggravates a selection of people in the real world, because they don't like the material reported, well? So what? We don't remove images of Mohammed. Same thing. Lawrence Cohen 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torture is illegal in most countries, including the U.S., and that includes torture if conducted by the CIA.
So, if waterboarding is always torture, then you are saying something about its legality.
Are you saying Wikipedia is in some form of legal risk from saying something like this? Lawrence Cohen 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if those six people were credible scientists with skills and experience in measuring mountain heights and they said that they have done some new measurements or that some physical phenomenon had taken place to raise some other mountain, we might indeed report that its status is disputed. However, you are discussing something that is a testable, measurable matter. Whether Waterboarding is torture is not really "testable" in that same sense, particularly if what is meant by "waterboarding" is not well defined. And the notion of Waterboarding as torture MIGHT be disputed if it is not well defined, even if it were not an election issue. But this is really not the core issue. The core issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?" The issue is: "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is Torture?" Every time we get away from that we get away from editing the article constructively. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to consider what kind of precision readers should get when they read this article.
The article cites lawyers as sources when it says at the top that it's always torture. That leads the reader to think we're talking about a matter of law.
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader, House of Representatives, who did not object contemporaneously to CIA use of waterboarding when informed of it in 2002, but did object to other CIA tactics.[24][25][26] (Pelosi did change her position after the fact when it became politically convenient to do so.) THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader, House of Representatives,[27]] who did not publically object to CIA use of waterboarding when her aide Michael Sheehy was informed of it in 2002. Pelosi has always publically maintained waterboarding is a form of torture. RTRimmel (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pelosi did change her position after the fact when it became politically convenient (possible/desirable/who knows what her actual reasons were/etc) to do so However, reading the source, Thiessen proposes that her silence is consent. Its akin to not charging a rapist because his victem was asleep. Its a very flawed argument. --RTRimmel
Here is the sources [[28]] This source says Pelosi didn't object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it -- only her aide had been told.RTRimmel (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[29]] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday. So her aide went and she couldn't directly protest. Changing header again. RTRimmel (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those claims have been overtaken by more recent reporting demonstrating that Pelosi lied: (1) she was briefed in 2002[30]; (2) Pelosi had no trouble going outside "appropriate legislative channels" when she objected to other CIA tactics.[31] Please try to be accurate rather than presenting outdated claims. THF (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the memo, which specifically names Michael Sheehy as the aide that was sent to the briefing, where he was told it was legal and Sheehy did not inform Pelosi that it was torture because the CIA did not present it as torture but did present it as legal and authorized by the DoJ, and its her fault that she was confused. Are you aware of what the term accurate means? Or are you talking about another memo that is, perhaps, less destructive to your argument? At minimum, your section header is highly inaccurate. RTRimmel (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[32]] there are dozens and dozens of sources that question what actually went on in there, but whatever, I'll let you have the WP:LASTWORD. RTRimmel (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing another source that shows that Pelosi was there, and provided "encouragement." THF (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Graham, Democratic Senator, did not object contemporaneously to CIA use of waterboarding.[33]THF (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Graham, Democratic Senator, who sent two staff memebers to a CIA lead discussion of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques where waterboarding was presented as legal and justified by a DoJ memo, did not at that time comment publically on waterboarding but has always maintained that waterboarding is form of torture. RTRimmel (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not objecting is not the same as supporting waterboarding is not torture. From your source, 'a description of the EIT's that had been employed' is all we can gather that Graham knew. The rest is a very flawed argument. --RTRimmel
[[34]] and I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them."RTRimmel (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporaneous records show that this non-denial denial is irrelevant. THF (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... You are aware that the CIA memos say that he sent two members of his staff to that briefing, an staff that were presented a position from the justice department that waterboarding was legal and authorized by the DoJ. Your contemporaneous argument is akin to saying that because they found the smoking gun with the murder's fingerprints and victem's blood on it, it could not be admitted because they found it after the crime? Perhaps his staff weren't an experts on all forms of torture and so didn't know that they should highlight it, or any other number of reasons. Or we can go with Human Events logic and Graham was activly plotting a communist revolution for our kenyan born president? RTRimmel (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:COOL:I'm citing Human Events because it has a copy of the memo, and will cite someone else if you find the copy elsewhere on the web. Are you actually claiming that the presence of Congressional staff at a meeting precludes the presence of the member? Because the memo says that the member and the staff was there -- which surprises me not a jot, because I've only once seen a member of Congress attend a policy briefing without staff present. THF (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you've changed the title to something that approaches NPOV and we have a few dozen links to all the various sources indicating that this is at most a tempest in a teacup, I'm done. Have fun, are you going to list the republicans who were also at the meeting as well? Wait, I can gather the answer to that one. RTRimmel (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. A number of the Congressional leaders who attended briefings have remained consistent in their views; this is a work in progress. (I haven't included Jane Harman yet, either; unlike Pelosi, she may have objected.) If a Rep was at a briefing, but still says today that CIA waterboarding isn't torture, then they're in a different category. This clearly isn't a tempest in a teacup: these Congressional leaders provided support and encouragement for the program contemporaneously, and only when it became unpopular within the Democratic party did they claim that it was somehow "torture." THF (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are going to stay with the 'its not rape if the victim is unconscious' logic. More power to you. 151.213.91.42 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil and don't misrepresent my argument. It's not rape when the representative has the power to object and instead asks the CIA if they're sure they're being tough enough. You'll note that Jane Harman isn't on this list. THF (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are taking the source, which states that 4 representatives were in the room and at least 2 provided encouragement to 'Pelosi endorses torture'. You have my support. I think I read somewhere where Big Bird hasn't had a position on torture either, obviously meaning that he fully endorses the practice as well. Of course, the source also says that some representatives in various meetings got less than a full picture of what the 'eit's were, despite them being the primary focus of the meeting. But, fortunately, with you here to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH we can take these random bits of knowledge and turn them into an article. RTRimmel (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to respond to my actual argument, rather than a strawman? THF (talk) 03:10, 17 Februatry 2010 (UTC)
You have an argument? Given how badly you were misquoting the sources I couldn't find one. For example, you are saying that Pelosi said they should be tougher, when the source clearly states that at least 2 of the four said they asked if the CIA was being tough enough which is of course not the same thing now is it? According to the sources, Pelosi may or may not have done what you are suggesting. According to various sources, repersentatives at the meetings don't remember 'EIT' discussions at all, or that there was very little detail given of certain processes. I suppose if I put some blinders on and attempted to read all of the sources with the specific direction that Pelosi was at fault I guess I could potentially find some issues that could be interpreted in such a direction, however given how vague the language is in almost everything that would certainly be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Your argument seems to be that you can read enough into some of the sources that your viewpoint is supported, which would of course be WP:POV so that must also be incorrect. I appologize, but I cannot find your argument, perhaps you could reread your sources and then restate it in a manner that is actually supported by them and I could follow. RTRimmel (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^Professor Lu Ann Homza (2006). The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614: An Anthology of Sources. Hackett Publishing. ISBN0872207943.
^"OPR Final Report"(PDF). Committee on the Judiciary. July 29, 2009. p. 251-254. Archived from the original(PDF) on July 28, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2011. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)