Talk:Waterboarding: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 31d) to Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 7.
Line 91: Line 91:


Finally, since this article accepts the view the waterboarding is torture (which it is) then this sentence can be rewritten as "According to Justice Department documents, the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information...". Stated like this, it seems even more out of place. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.193.208|81.157.193.208]] ([[User talk:81.157.193.208|talk]]) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Finally, since this article accepts the view the waterboarding is torture (which it is) then this sentence can be rewritten as "According to Justice Department documents, the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information...". Stated like this, it seems even more out of place. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.193.208|81.157.193.208]] ([[User talk:81.157.193.208|talk]]) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== To PhGustaf: "will this never end?" ==

Perhaps it will "never end" because a certain group of editors have seized control of this article and made it entirely POV, while ruthlessly suppressing other viewpoints. You have decided tht "waterboarding is torture" is a 'fact' Divinely Pronounced from Mt Horeb, and in trying to maintain the illusion of that 'fact' are almost certainly going to get dissenting voices from now until whatever time the epistemic closure ceases. Hint: when editor after editor tries to sway an article from Received Opinion, that's a big clue that the article violates NPOV. Have we learned nothing from the William Connolley debacle? --[[User:Solicitr|Solicitr]] ([[User talk:Solicitr|talk]]) 13:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:56, 13 November 2010

Template:Article probation

Former featured article candidateWaterboarding is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 17, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Waterboarding and the media

Interesting paper here - [1]. Remember (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding your girlfriend

Evidently, this activity has caught on in Nebraska See [2]. Perhaps their should be a crime area in this article. Remember (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bush says "Damn right" he ordered waterboarding

Evidently, Bush's new book states that he said "damn right" when asked to authorized the use of waterboarding on KSM. Here is a link to the article [3]. Maybe it should be included. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. --John (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, given there is an entire article about it and there is even a slight chance he will have to pay for this confession. Hans Adler 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but with proper attribution ("Bush claimed..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably best to wait until the book is released so we can lift the actual quote. That article hedges a little with the 'according to someone who has read the book' part. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauer interview

Bush talked pretty extensively about waterboarding, its legal justification, and his use of it with his interview with Matt Lauer. Here is a link to the transcript [4]. Here is the excerpt below. I think this should be incorporated somehow into the article. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUSH: Let-- let-- let's talk about waterboarding.
LAUER: Okay.
BUSH: We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda… ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows.” And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."
LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?
BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer., but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.
LAUER: You say it's legal. "And the lawyers told me."
BUSH: Yeah.
LAUER: Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted.
BUSH: Well—
LAUER: Tom Kean, who a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people.
BUSH: He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book. That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did.
LAUER: You talk about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There's another guy you write about in the book, Abu Zabeta, another high profile terror suspect. He was waterboarded. By the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, according to most reports, 183 times. This guy was waterboarded more than 80 times. And you explain that his understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation up to a certain point and waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold and fulfill his religious duty and then cooperate. And you have a quote from him. "You must do this for all the brothers." End quote.
BUSH: Yeah. Isn't that interesting?
LAUER: Abu Zabeta really went to someone and said, "You should waterboard all the brothers?
BUSH: He didn't say that. He said, "You should give brothers the chance to be able to fulfill their duty." I don't recall him saying you should water-- I think it's-- I think it's an assumption in your case.
LAUER: Yeah, I-- when "You must do this for--"
BUSH: But…
LAUER: …"All the brothers." So to let them get to that threshold?
BUSH: Yeah, that's what-- that's how I interpreted. I-- look, first of all we used this technique on three people. Captured a lot of people and used it on three. We gained value-- information to protect the country. And it was the right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.
LAUER: So if-- if it's legal, President Bush, then if an American is taken into custody in a foreign country, not necessarily a uniformed--
BUSH: Look, I --
LAUER: American­­--
BUSH: I'm not gonna the issue, Matt. I, I really--
LAUER: I'm just asking. Would it be okay for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?
BUSH: It's all I ask is that people read the book. And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not.
LAUER: You'd make the same decision again today?
BUSH: Yeah, I would.

NPOV

The lede reads, "waterboarding is a form of torture." A flat out statement, poses as fact when it represents a hotly-disputed opinion. Recommend "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique which many assert constitutes torture." Similarly, this edotorializing usage, "Justice Department memo attempting to justify torture" --Solicitr (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See all the archives and all the reliable sources. This is not a "hotly debated opinion" among anybody but a few political pundits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Dept. / Los Angeles attack

"According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized terrorist attack on Los Angeles."

I'd suggest this should be removed (or at least moved). First, the supporting link no longer exists. Second, unless they actually produced some evidence that this is true, rather than just asserting that it is, should is really be mentioned at this point in the article? Perhaps, there should be a section contrasting the claims of the efficacy of waterboarding versus the counter claims that it is entirely unproductive - some examples:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/11/06/no-appetite-for-prosecution-in-memoir-bush-admits-he-authorized-the-use-of-torture-but-no-one-cares/

Where this currently appears in the article, isolated from context and counter argument, seems misplaced (if not actually POV).

Finally, since this article accepts the view the waterboarding is torture (which it is) then this sentence can be rewritten as "According to Justice Department documents, the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information...". Stated like this, it seems even more out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.193.208 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To PhGustaf: "will this never end?"

Perhaps it will "never end" because a certain group of editors have seized control of this article and made it entirely POV, while ruthlessly suppressing other viewpoints. You have decided tht "waterboarding is torture" is a 'fact' Divinely Pronounced from Mt Horeb, and in trying to maintain the illusion of that 'fact' are almost certainly going to get dissenting voices from now until whatever time the epistemic closure ceases. Hint: when editor after editor tries to sway an article from Received Opinion, that's a big clue that the article violates NPOV. Have we learned nothing from the William Connolley debacle? --Solicitr (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]