This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While secular courts often treated suspects ferociously, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers in medieval Spain.[citation needed]
Will and Ariel Durant, although they are fine writers, are not academic historians, and lack any deep knowledge of this subject, or most the others they write about. Empirically much better scholarship on the issue, anyway, has now been done, than that available in the time they wrote. Although inquisitorial courts did sometimes use torture, this passage probably gets the matter reversed. In general, the legal procedures of the Spanish Inquisition were stricter than those of secular courts and conformed better to the legal standards of the time, such as they were (exception: rule of secrecy). Anyway, forms of torture were basically traditional in Early Modern Europe, and the friars themselves did not do the torturing. A much more objective discussion can be found in Edward Peter's books on the subject "Torture" and "Inquisition" published by University of Pennsylvania and University of California Presses respectively
Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.
This sounds as if the Nazis simply went a little too far, and as a result people got overly emotional about it and were stupid enough to "sweepingly" forbid all torture, even including the good and useful torture such as the one used by the US government. In fact, humanists and progressives realized both the inefficiency and the inhumanity of torture for decades if not centuries before the Nazis. The opposite claim requires a citation.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Any torture, of course, goes "too far" according to any humanist, irrespective of the regime. It reflects the depravity of the ruling elite (and, yes, that applies to American tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib).
The Nazis brought torture to places that had fully accepted the Enlightenment concept that torture is abominable, inexcusable, and ineffective contrary to the sensibilities of the conquered peoples. That it continued in the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states reflects that fanaticism and vindictiveness that degrade the "enemies of the people" into dehumanized pariahs against whom no abuse is understood as excessive. -- Paul from Michigan ( talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the question is not one of whether people were overly emotional or stupid. Did the aftermath of WWII lead to sweeping international rejection of torture or did it not? If so, the above quote--devoid of any commentary on philosophy, I might add--is correct. Wikipedia doesn't report from a "humanist" point of view, or any point of view; it only reports the facts.-- 75.105.64.38 ( talk) 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead has been wandering from a clear definition of torture.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives for its first two definitions for torture as a noun
And as a verb:
It seems to me that given the above we should go back to the us of the UN definition at the start of the article -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "re-education" was used, but the word "reeducation" should have been used instead. There is a Wikipedia article entitled "re-education" and it is referenced in the torture article. I don't want to correct the spelling because I want to allow this article to link to it.( Improve ( talk) 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)).
Singling out two states from all the states listed in the Uses of torture in recent times leads to biased and is not a WP:NPOV. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You write above "Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture." Has there been a court case that makes this ruling, because the conventions are clear in making a distinction? Are you really claiming that there is no difference under law?
The ECHR ruled that the five techniques as practised by Britain in the 1970s were "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment" not torture. You have not addressed the bias in the wording you choose to use "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" when one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture'. You still have not defined what democratic means.
The allegations against the US et all were moved out of this article into another one and I think it show a form of bias to present a few countries out of those listed in the article Uses of torture in recent times (a very incomplete list) and list them on this page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sure pressure is brought not to break the law in most countries, or else it would not be the law. Torture occurs when that pressure is removed. The five techniques were only found not to be torture by the ECHR on appeal by the UK Government, but was still illegal but they agreed to call it something different. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids inhuman and degrading treatment, so the difference between this and torture is a just a form of words- a form however which allows Condoleeza Rice to be able to deny that the US uses "torture" even though it does. To paraphrase Shakespeare "torture does never prosper and here's the reason- for if it prosper none dare call it torture" (OK so it doesn't rhyme) -- Streona ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to have a section on the recent use of torture, on what basis is the United States not mentioned? The US govt. has openly admitted to using torture -- of course, they don't call it that -- but that is utterly irrelevant. In fact, this article begins with a discussion of the fact that governments never call what they are doing "torture." Beyond the fact that the US govt itself has admitted to using various forms of torture, torture conducted by the US is a well-documented fact. You can't use Amnesty International as a source when proving that various other governments use torture, but then not use them as a source when it comes to the US. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow the link Uses of torture in recent times which has a sub-section on the United Stetes. I agree with you that that could be expanded and encourage you to do so. Recent allegations from an Ethipian formerly resident in the UK also accuses the US at Guantanamo Bay of having mutilated his penis, but this cannot be confirmed as they have said it is secret as to whether they have or not (well it would be, wouldn't it?). However if Condy wishes to go on about waterboarding and stress positions not being defined as torture (however, do not try this at home), it would be interesting to see how this would be defined.-- Streona ( talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Before someone deletes the part I added about the US again, you need to explain how it is POV. How do we know that governments torture? Through groups like Amnesty International and the claims of those tortured -- not to mention government statements. In this very section it states: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Is that "sourced?" Is that POV? Explain the difference. We know that many totalitarian regimes torture the same way we know the US has used torture. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
According to a report issued by Amnesty International: “Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations,” the report said. Is it sourced now, according to you? If you still consider my statement to be "unsourced" and "POV" then every reference to Amnesty International needs to be deleted from this article. See here: Amnesty: Torture by US widespread -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That might be a compelling point if there weren't "one state" already singled out one line above the part you just deleted: the Soviet Union. So I guess it is fine to "single out" one state as long as it is the Soviet Union and not the US? Please explain your logic on that. If there is going to be a section called "Use of torture in recent times" in this article at all, how can it fail to mention the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times?" i.e., the US. I'm not going to restore my edit (yet again) at this point, since I am not looking for an edit war. Let's hear your argument and hopefully we can find an agreeable solution. THanks. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the use of torture by the USA is the most prominent is hardly the point, but whether or not they have a recent history of torture, whether prominent or discreet. The ECHR found that the five techniques were not "torture" on appeal, although lower courts had decided that they were. This is playing with words and just as doctors are employed by torturers so too are lawyers. Techniques involving sensory deprivation were discontinued in tests with volunteers in Canada due to the possibility of long-term psychosis and psychiatric damage, but were still uaed in Ulster for even longer periods. For the final verdict on the US use of "aggressive interrogation", or whatever the latest euphemism is, to be left subjudice in this article until the US courts decide, is rather naive and is not a technique which would be used for say, Algeria or Saddam's Iraq. Generally we would rely on survivors testaments, witness statements and evidence, regardless of whether the perpetrators continue to deny it. The US is even now attempting to suppress evidence from Guantanamo on grounds of "national security". I have nothing against the USA (when they are not involved in systematically kidnappinf and torturing people), but I do not see why it is necessary to treat them any differently from other noations involved in thee practices.-- Streona ( talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ashe: In response to your question "Is it sourced now, according to you?" It's WP:Verified (at least it would have been if you'd written it as "According to Amnesty International...") but since I was very clear that it was also not in keeping with our WP:POV policy because of undue weight, the source does nothing to address that aspect, and you completely ignored it, it's not sufficient.
If we're going to pick one country to highlight in the summary on this page (and I'm not clear why a summary should do that - we have the main article to go into detail on all countries) we should be looking at the work of organizations who make global comparative reports not pulling on our own assumptions and using those. Because while I'm personally horrified at the US's involvement in torture I think there are countries where use is far more prevalent and ingrained and I don't see the US use as coming close - but that's just my opinion so it's not appropriate for me to promote those other countries' use in this summary either. It's the opinion of experts who are looking at torture use by governments globally that we should reflect. I had thought Human Rights Watch produced an index but on looking it seems not - may be some one else here knows of something similar. -- SiobhanHansa 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Ashe the Cyborg you wrote "There are people who deny that the US uses torture, but it has already been admitted to by the US government itself." Where is the U.S. Government statement that they have employed torture such that it places them in violation of their treaty obligations? Further until someone removed it (and I intend to reinstate it this article said recent times is defined as ""Recent times" in the context of this article is from 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." so just because the US is in the news today does not mean that it is the most prominent and controversial in recent times.-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of torture is also widespread in detention facilities under the control of the United States government around the globe ( Amnesty: Torture by US widespread). The United States government has admitted to the use of various torture techniques, including but not limited to waterboarding and stress positions.
The Convention against Torture defines torture as "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…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
The five techniques evolved by British security/NATO (I believe at a conference in Ashford in Kent) to be "on the edge of legality" -as Philip puts it- were found illegal at the ECHR; i.e. on the other side of the edge. The USA is prominent in its super-power role in away that some minor country- such as Uzbekistan is not, even though such countries may have more widespread abuses. A definition of "widespread" is obviously more difficult, but the question is whther or not torture is being used as amatter of standard procedure and policy, or is it just the odd maverick bad apple.
It does seem thet the US is being singled out in this conversation partly by Ashe- which, given the USAs international significance is I suggest justified, but also when some kind of special pleading is introduced to say that what the US does, and admits to doing, is in some way technically not. Any form of suspension or stress positioning is very painful or it would not be done. Waterboarding is undertaken because it has the same effect as half-drowning. Howver, I reject the notion that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the USA and Al Qaeda terrorists. -- Streona ( talk) 08:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out while some of these arguments have been flying- but I understand Philip Baird Shearer is saying that the USA is not torturing people (accepting that admitted techniques are torture) because it does not allow it in territories over which it has jurisdiction, but in Guantanamo Bay, where it has no legal jurisdiction, but only administrative powers. So who does ?If the film "A Few Good Men" is anything to go by, it seems the US Marine Corps does. So the USA does not torture people-the USMC does. This is a clever argument to put before US courts, but does it have any meaning for the purpose of a wikipedia article? I presume that there is no recourse against the USMC for the same reason as there is none against the USA- they are extremely heavily armed and are quite prepared to kidnap people from anywhere in the world whom they do not like.
Whether waterboarding is torture is whther it meets the international definition of torture, not the US Governments. I expect there are any number of states who do not consider their own practices as torture but categorise similar practises by others as such. I understand that the Spanish Inquisition felt they were merely acting for the good of their "clients'" souls when submitting them to the rack. If we allow other states the same latitude as is claimed for the USA (or USMC) there has probably never been any torture anywhere. Thus everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds -- Streona ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I took out the section on the USSR and the part that said sadistic pleasure is a motivation for torture (that has nothing to do with torture in recent times). I also removed the claims that "countries find it expedient to torture." How do you source that? Stick to what they do, not to what they supposedly think -- or else it should be sourced. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out one thing about the on-going debate here. Re this line: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Why is it that I haven't heard anyone complain that this isn't sourced? I haven't heard any debate over the use of the word "frequent." (While people did object to "widespread" in my proposed addition). And no one has pointed out that it is unfair and biased to single out "totalitarian regimes." Yet all of these complaints have been lodged against the addition of either "major powers" or "democratic states." Same deal on the US vs. the USSR that I already pointed out. Anyway, my point is only that you can ALWAYS raise objections if you want to and some are very selective about when they choose to raise these sort of objections. Without some sort of commonsense baseline, what you can say about any topic becomes extremely limited -- to the point of worthlessness. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In reference to this edit, I am assuming (in light of the above) that there is definitely not consensus for including material on secret government mind-control programs using torture in the United States. In addition to violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, the above thread already demonstrates a lack of consensus for singling out the charges of torture raised against the US by mainstream sources, let alone wacko conspiracy theories about torture. But feel free to discuss the merits of inclusion here. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Should not be included. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
as per wp:fringe “A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication.” If this is fringe it has been referenced in three reliable sources and deserves mention. Turtleshell2go ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1. United Kingdom 2. USA 3. France 4. Israel 5. Iraq 6. Pakistan
and probably India and Sri Lanka. Is Iran democratic- Ahminejad was certainly voted in, although as many opposition parties were banned this is only partially true. The same can be said of Zimbabwe. Any more ? Brazil or Jamaica ? More than just two. -- Streona ( talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on Stockdale states that he did reveal information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.-- Streona ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted a statement about coercion upon members of the Algerian Army. I cannot source this as it was based upon a personal interview with a man who had refused to participate any more after having bayonetted a mother with a child in her arms. He was imprisoned and tortured by being fed salted food and deprived of water and then jetted by high pressure hoses. He was discharged, due to becoming medically unfit as a result of his torture. The rebels then visited him and stabbed him in the heart (which he survived). Obviously I cannot give his name or further details.-- Streona ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, except my ex client.-- Streona ( talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV means not even mentioning the mere words, let alone the international dispute of the practices of the present US government?!
In my opinion, more likely a miscomprehension of "political correctness" and a misuse of NPOV. Very sad, for the tortured, for the wikipedia and for the mentality of a (the 'ruling') part of the american society.
I have placed a link on the article Waterboarding to the wikipedia page, where it is defined as a form of torture.-- Streona ( talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no context in the text for the painting at the head of the article. What is "torture by mosquito"? Can this information be provided or another illustration substituted ?-- Streona ( talk) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to see a minor edit war breaking out over a link. I originally removed this because it was spammed here and on quite a few other pages by the organization's director. It's a POV site which doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate so long as there are other links to balancing POVs in order to present a a neutral whole. But I would ask editors to consider if there aren't better sites with a similar POV we could use instead that haven't been spammed here. In any case, as an external link it should not be in the see also section. -- SiobhanHansa 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for any edit war. I had not been aware of this organisation and working occasionally with torture survivors I found it a useful resource. Is being against torture or seeking redress for torture POV ? It is difficult to find a website to balance this - explicitly pro-torture and against justice (well, one that is not pornographic). Even if one were in favour of torture for extracting information from terrorists - as many people are - having done so, the victims would still need rehabilitation, unless the purpose of torture is something else more sinister. I do not know if it has been spammed - I assume that that implies a mechanical process of random emails, rather than just self promotion, but so what? So should it be in a new section, "External links" ?-- Streona ( talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Governments who wish to protest their personnel involved in torture from threat of legal redress should have done so by not making their activities illegal in the forst place, since this is a prerequisite for legal action. Strangely torture - whilst widely condoned by many governments - is nonetheless technically illegal in most of them - including for example, China There is already a number of organisations, such as the Medical Foundation for the care of Victims of Torture, so it has become a directory albeit of internal wiki links. On the point of Spam; does it not cease to be spam if I put it in, rather than its director? What I could do is write a separate wikipedia about Redress - as objectively as possible and then link to that.-- Streona ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
see Redress (Charitable Trust for Torture Survivors) -- Streona ( talk) 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
During the Algerian War the French produced the Ouillaume Report, which is printed in Pierre Vidal-Naquet's book "Torture, Cancer of Democracy". The USA is currently quietly pro-torture in certain circle and more inclined to discuss this than some of the traditional torture deniers. their is a separate wikipedia article on Torture in the United States. I found this http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Torture,_interrogation_and_intelligence but I am not sure of its provenance.-- Streona ( talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
regardless of dictionary definitions, would not forcing a parent to witness the toture of their child constitute torture, in it's own right? Colin.j.mackay ( talk) 08:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Distressingly common, especially under Saddam Hussein.-- Streona ( talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that the info I added about torture in Israel was deleted, and I see no evidence of an explanation. Was consensus reached to delete this info? Israel is a special case. I understand that people get tired of Israel getting singled out in a range of ways, but the issues around Israeli rules on torture are highly relevant to this page. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.
The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future". The report is currently hosted in the FAS website. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
Utilitarianism has arguments for torture, too. The word "strong" is out of place. Who decides the argument is strong? If it is an objective quality, I would argue that it isn't strong. There is no scientific evidence supporting torture, but that isn't a fair criticism. You can't steady something like that easily. The article cited primarily talks about how torture is unnecessary rather than how torture is ineffective. Obviously I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see much in terms of "X number of people were tortured, and X number of tortures had no results." Unless I missed something, that doesn't qualify as criticizing the effectiveness of torture unless you have that kind of data. I didn't want to go willy-nilly editing the article, but I hope someone will address my concerns. The fact that utilitarianism is being used to support a poor argument (especially when utilitarianism can be used to support both sides) is mainly what annoys me.
Why do the two photographs at the start of the Article (Abu Ghraib) depict "torture" under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) (as defined in Article 1(1) thereof) rather than so-called "Article 16 acts" which are admittedly "cruel and inhuman" (and which State Parties undertake to prevent) but which nevertheless don't rise to the level of "torture" within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the UNCAT?
The Ireland v UK case (decided before the drafting of the UNCAT) is of course only persuasive and not mandatory authority for the interpretation of the UNCAT, but it suggests that the actions depicted in the photos are "Article 16" acts of "cruelty and inhumanity", rather than Article 1(1) acts of "torture." Hooding and handcuffing and being held in uncomfortable positions all would fall in the sub-torture category under Ireland v. UK. See Five techniques.
Official Text of UNCAT
Torture (US law definition) (NB: No pertinent US law deviations from UNCAT for this question)
Five techniques
Since it is controversial both as a factual matter (not clear exactly what all is being done, or not done, in the photos) and as a legal matter (where is the line between Article 1 acts of torture and Article 16 acts of bad-but-less-than-torture), it may be right to have an explanation of some sort with the pictures. There is substantial judicial opinion that the photos are not of "torture" (at least if you adopt the current definition from the major authority of the UNCAT). SixBlueFish ( talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see, so ---
I think that is a very good suggestion and improves the article's clarity, but I am not at all convinced about there being "clear agreement" that waterboarding is Article 1(1) "torture."
The current US Administration has said so (through the current AG, if I remember correctly, during his confirmation hearings?), but a lot of people in the prior Administration disagreed at the time, and probably still disagree. Also it has been used in the US military in training its own troops, and that suggests (does it?) that it is not "torture" (or at least that they don't think it is torture?).
NB: I am not taking the position that it is not torture, or that it is torture. I am questioning whether or not there is indeed "clear agreement." Those are entirely different questions of course. I think your suggestion re: moving and replacing pix is a good one on the article revision BTW. SixBlueFish ( talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
With an ironic note (p 2) that the suspect confessed to everything he was accused of after 2 mins of WB'ing. And that impressed people? So -- save all the trouble and just write down everything you accuse him of, then say "Well, we were gonna WB you, but since you'll confess to everything anyway....it's not needed... let's see, planning to blow up San Francisco Bay, hijack Brittany Spears, steal Cher's wardrobe... yep, that about wraps it up...." and skip a step. Saves a lotta work that way.)).
On the newly released (by Obama WH) memos: really bad reporting here. The headlines say that the memos "ooo, the Bush lawyers admit WB is torture." However, when you bother to read what they actually wrote (gotta read the photocopy of the actual document), they don't admit any such thing but are just assuming that it is torture, for purposes of their analysis... and the context makes it clear that they think, that it may well NOT be torture.
Blair confirmation hearing So -- Holder said "It is torture", then a few days later Obama's other nominee says "We won't use torture and we won't use WB and beyond that, I saith naught." Declining to say whether it is or is not. You gotta have good instincts in DC to know which away the wind doth blow at the time....
CNN Telephone Survey And what better way to construe a complicated legal provision, than to call up 1000 Americans who will actually talk to some telephone pollster and ask them what the answer is? (Fall of 2007)
However,
So about 15% of those who think it is torture, think it's OK to use it anyway if it helps, which is a complete rejection of the underlying premise of the UNCAT. SixBlueFish ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) SixBlueFish ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the "motivations for torture" section. It was entirely unsourced. That's number one.
Number two, the "Torture in recent times" section is ridiculous. Given the worldwide media attention over the controversies surrounding the use of torture by the US in recent years, it strains credulity that that isn't even mentioned in this section. I'm not adding that (yet) because I've been through this before on this article (see above). I already know this article is "protected" by a few editors who will instantly start an edit war if anyone tries to change it. This article has many serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition that starts the page is misleading. It says "Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is...", but, in fact, the UNCAT does not define the term generally, it defines a word specifically for the scope of the rest of the document:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means
The quote includes the entire first paragraph of the UNCAT eliding just these words.
It's quite misleading to use, as a general purpose definition, a definition that explicitly disavows general applicability...especially when there are so many other general definitions available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
TJIC ( talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Torture is: (a) the intentional act or process of imposing extreme physical or mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless victim; (b) the intentional actions to substantially reduce the victim's capability to exercise autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, intiated for the purpose of breaking the victim's will. Oneofshibumi ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is determined to add this guy as a source in this wikipedia article - 'cause it's usual after a Daily Show - I strongly recommend to take a look at the vagueness and ultimately, hypocrisy, that the term "amount of pain" hides. What does that even mean? "amount of pain". Are you going to measure it with a scales? Are you going to put electrodes on the "patient"? 'Cause how are you going to do that when you also have other electrodes for pain? -- AaThinker ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
What is it in the article that warrant a template that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A no none has added a reason for the POV template to the talk page I am removing it. -- PBS ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
user:Ashe the Cyborg you have been asked to state what you think the specific issues are on this talk page several times. It is no use saying "Yes, there are many reasons given on the talk page" and "Clean-keeper One does not need to restate their arguments with every revert" when you have not mentioned one specific item and other editors are clearly perplexed as to what you think carries a non neutral point of view (bias) on this page. There has been a section on this page called "POV template" clearly dedicated to the use of the {{tl|POV} template since 4 September 2008. Now that I have moved it to the bottom of the page (so you can easily see it) please will you state clearly what is in the article that you feel it necessary to repeatedly put this template at the top of the article, and why it is you can not place {{ POV section}}in on the specific sections where you think there is a POV problem. -- PBS ( talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from user:Ashe the Cyborg and user:Philip Baird Shearer appear to have an agenda (please read discourse at the top of this page) and are not what I would describe as objective comments (I am addressing the words, not the two humans, only partially organic as one of them may be, here). In my view, based on Wikipedia policy, the neutrality tag should stay and someone that is not invested in the topic should be editing the article. Removing the neutrality tag because "no-one has presented argument for a while" is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK, and does not remove the existence of the dispute particularly if the article has not substantially changed since the dispute comments - Socrates' arguments are still presentable, and he hasn't made any for a while! The neutrality tag in this article, according to Wikipedia policy, is not "drive-by tagging" as arguments have definitely been presented for two sides at the top of this page. Removing contributions without heeding the Wikipedia verifiability policy is counter-productive, if the statement has a verifiable source it should not be removed based on "it's not true" or "it's not a fact" or "it's disputed" or "it's not the full story" or "it's selective and therefore POV", according to my reading of Wikipedia policy, rather one can present other verifiable sources to complete the picture as much as possible ("all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - note the use of the word "all" in the Wikipedia POV policy). As there is much politicised controversy in the US over the definition of torture, recently, I should think it would be a disservice for there to be no objective mention of this in the article and it would appear to be entirely relevant (note: it is mentioned in the Waterboarding article on Wikipedia). ABCGi ( talk) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While secular courts often treated suspects ferociously, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers in medieval Spain.[citation needed]
Will and Ariel Durant, although they are fine writers, are not academic historians, and lack any deep knowledge of this subject, or most the others they write about. Empirically much better scholarship on the issue, anyway, has now been done, than that available in the time they wrote. Although inquisitorial courts did sometimes use torture, this passage probably gets the matter reversed. In general, the legal procedures of the Spanish Inquisition were stricter than those of secular courts and conformed better to the legal standards of the time, such as they were (exception: rule of secrecy). Anyway, forms of torture were basically traditional in Early Modern Europe, and the friars themselves did not do the torturing. A much more objective discussion can be found in Edward Peter's books on the subject "Torture" and "Inquisition" published by University of Pennsylvania and University of California Presses respectively
Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.
This sounds as if the Nazis simply went a little too far, and as a result people got overly emotional about it and were stupid enough to "sweepingly" forbid all torture, even including the good and useful torture such as the one used by the US government. In fact, humanists and progressives realized both the inefficiency and the inhumanity of torture for decades if not centuries before the Nazis. The opposite claim requires a citation.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Any torture, of course, goes "too far" according to any humanist, irrespective of the regime. It reflects the depravity of the ruling elite (and, yes, that applies to American tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib).
The Nazis brought torture to places that had fully accepted the Enlightenment concept that torture is abominable, inexcusable, and ineffective contrary to the sensibilities of the conquered peoples. That it continued in the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states reflects that fanaticism and vindictiveness that degrade the "enemies of the people" into dehumanized pariahs against whom no abuse is understood as excessive. -- Paul from Michigan ( talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the question is not one of whether people were overly emotional or stupid. Did the aftermath of WWII lead to sweeping international rejection of torture or did it not? If so, the above quote--devoid of any commentary on philosophy, I might add--is correct. Wikipedia doesn't report from a "humanist" point of view, or any point of view; it only reports the facts.-- 75.105.64.38 ( talk) 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead has been wandering from a clear definition of torture.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives for its first two definitions for torture as a noun
And as a verb:
It seems to me that given the above we should go back to the us of the UN definition at the start of the article -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "re-education" was used, but the word "reeducation" should have been used instead. There is a Wikipedia article entitled "re-education" and it is referenced in the torture article. I don't want to correct the spelling because I want to allow this article to link to it.( Improve ( talk) 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)).
Singling out two states from all the states listed in the Uses of torture in recent times leads to biased and is not a WP:NPOV. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You write above "Inhuman and degrading treatment to an Iraqi qualifies as mental torture under the UN definition because of their culture." Has there been a court case that makes this ruling, because the conventions are clear in making a distinction? Are you really claiming that there is no difference under law?
The ECHR ruled that the five techniques as practised by Britain in the 1970s were "a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment" not torture. You have not addressed the bias in the wording you choose to use "pressure was brought to bear to use torture" when one could write 'pressure was brought not to use torture'. You still have not defined what democratic means.
The allegations against the US et all were moved out of this article into another one and I think it show a form of bias to present a few countries out of those listed in the article Uses of torture in recent times (a very incomplete list) and list them on this page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sure pressure is brought not to break the law in most countries, or else it would not be the law. Torture occurs when that pressure is removed. The five techniques were only found not to be torture by the ECHR on appeal by the UK Government, but was still illegal but they agreed to call it something different. The European Convention on Human Rights forbids inhuman and degrading treatment, so the difference between this and torture is a just a form of words- a form however which allows Condoleeza Rice to be able to deny that the US uses "torture" even though it does. To paraphrase Shakespeare "torture does never prosper and here's the reason- for if it prosper none dare call it torture" (OK so it doesn't rhyme) -- Streona ( talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to have a section on the recent use of torture, on what basis is the United States not mentioned? The US govt. has openly admitted to using torture -- of course, they don't call it that -- but that is utterly irrelevant. In fact, this article begins with a discussion of the fact that governments never call what they are doing "torture." Beyond the fact that the US govt itself has admitted to using various forms of torture, torture conducted by the US is a well-documented fact. You can't use Amnesty International as a source when proving that various other governments use torture, but then not use them as a source when it comes to the US. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow the link Uses of torture in recent times which has a sub-section on the United Stetes. I agree with you that that could be expanded and encourage you to do so. Recent allegations from an Ethipian formerly resident in the UK also accuses the US at Guantanamo Bay of having mutilated his penis, but this cannot be confirmed as they have said it is secret as to whether they have or not (well it would be, wouldn't it?). However if Condy wishes to go on about waterboarding and stress positions not being defined as torture (however, do not try this at home), it would be interesting to see how this would be defined.-- Streona ( talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Before someone deletes the part I added about the US again, you need to explain how it is POV. How do we know that governments torture? Through groups like Amnesty International and the claims of those tortured -- not to mention government statements. In this very section it states: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Is that "sourced?" Is that POV? Explain the difference. We know that many totalitarian regimes torture the same way we know the US has used torture. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
According to a report issued by Amnesty International: “Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations,” the report said. Is it sourced now, according to you? If you still consider my statement to be "unsourced" and "POV" then every reference to Amnesty International needs to be deleted from this article. See here: Amnesty: Torture by US widespread -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That might be a compelling point if there weren't "one state" already singled out one line above the part you just deleted: the Soviet Union. So I guess it is fine to "single out" one state as long as it is the Soviet Union and not the US? Please explain your logic on that. If there is going to be a section called "Use of torture in recent times" in this article at all, how can it fail to mention the most prominent and controversial example of "recent times?" i.e., the US. I'm not going to restore my edit (yet again) at this point, since I am not looking for an edit war. Let's hear your argument and hopefully we can find an agreeable solution. THanks. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the use of torture by the USA is the most prominent is hardly the point, but whether or not they have a recent history of torture, whether prominent or discreet. The ECHR found that the five techniques were not "torture" on appeal, although lower courts had decided that they were. This is playing with words and just as doctors are employed by torturers so too are lawyers. Techniques involving sensory deprivation were discontinued in tests with volunteers in Canada due to the possibility of long-term psychosis and psychiatric damage, but were still uaed in Ulster for even longer periods. For the final verdict on the US use of "aggressive interrogation", or whatever the latest euphemism is, to be left subjudice in this article until the US courts decide, is rather naive and is not a technique which would be used for say, Algeria or Saddam's Iraq. Generally we would rely on survivors testaments, witness statements and evidence, regardless of whether the perpetrators continue to deny it. The US is even now attempting to suppress evidence from Guantanamo on grounds of "national security". I have nothing against the USA (when they are not involved in systematically kidnappinf and torturing people), but I do not see why it is necessary to treat them any differently from other noations involved in thee practices.-- Streona ( talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ashe: In response to your question "Is it sourced now, according to you?" It's WP:Verified (at least it would have been if you'd written it as "According to Amnesty International...") but since I was very clear that it was also not in keeping with our WP:POV policy because of undue weight, the source does nothing to address that aspect, and you completely ignored it, it's not sufficient.
If we're going to pick one country to highlight in the summary on this page (and I'm not clear why a summary should do that - we have the main article to go into detail on all countries) we should be looking at the work of organizations who make global comparative reports not pulling on our own assumptions and using those. Because while I'm personally horrified at the US's involvement in torture I think there are countries where use is far more prevalent and ingrained and I don't see the US use as coming close - but that's just my opinion so it's not appropriate for me to promote those other countries' use in this summary either. It's the opinion of experts who are looking at torture use by governments globally that we should reflect. I had thought Human Rights Watch produced an index but on looking it seems not - may be some one else here knows of something similar. -- SiobhanHansa 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Ashe the Cyborg you wrote "There are people who deny that the US uses torture, but it has already been admitted to by the US government itself." Where is the U.S. Government statement that they have employed torture such that it places them in violation of their treaty obligations? Further until someone removed it (and I intend to reinstate it this article said recent times is defined as ""Recent times" in the context of this article is from 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." so just because the US is in the news today does not mean that it is the most prominent and controversial in recent times.-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of torture is also widespread in detention facilities under the control of the United States government around the globe ( Amnesty: Torture by US widespread). The United States government has admitted to the use of various torture techniques, including but not limited to waterboarding and stress positions.
The Convention against Torture defines torture as "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…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
The five techniques evolved by British security/NATO (I believe at a conference in Ashford in Kent) to be "on the edge of legality" -as Philip puts it- were found illegal at the ECHR; i.e. on the other side of the edge. The USA is prominent in its super-power role in away that some minor country- such as Uzbekistan is not, even though such countries may have more widespread abuses. A definition of "widespread" is obviously more difficult, but the question is whther or not torture is being used as amatter of standard procedure and policy, or is it just the odd maverick bad apple.
It does seem thet the US is being singled out in this conversation partly by Ashe- which, given the USAs international significance is I suggest justified, but also when some kind of special pleading is introduced to say that what the US does, and admits to doing, is in some way technically not. Any form of suspension or stress positioning is very painful or it would not be done. Waterboarding is undertaken because it has the same effect as half-drowning. Howver, I reject the notion that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the USA and Al Qaeda terrorists. -- Streona ( talk) 08:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out while some of these arguments have been flying- but I understand Philip Baird Shearer is saying that the USA is not torturing people (accepting that admitted techniques are torture) because it does not allow it in territories over which it has jurisdiction, but in Guantanamo Bay, where it has no legal jurisdiction, but only administrative powers. So who does ?If the film "A Few Good Men" is anything to go by, it seems the US Marine Corps does. So the USA does not torture people-the USMC does. This is a clever argument to put before US courts, but does it have any meaning for the purpose of a wikipedia article? I presume that there is no recourse against the USMC for the same reason as there is none against the USA- they are extremely heavily armed and are quite prepared to kidnap people from anywhere in the world whom they do not like.
Whether waterboarding is torture is whther it meets the international definition of torture, not the US Governments. I expect there are any number of states who do not consider their own practices as torture but categorise similar practises by others as such. I understand that the Spanish Inquisition felt they were merely acting for the good of their "clients'" souls when submitting them to the rack. If we allow other states the same latitude as is claimed for the USA (or USMC) there has probably never been any torture anywhere. Thus everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds -- Streona ( talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I took out the section on the USSR and the part that said sadistic pleasure is a motivation for torture (that has nothing to do with torture in recent times). I also removed the claims that "countries find it expedient to torture." How do you source that? Stick to what they do, not to what they supposedly think -- or else it should be sourced. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out one thing about the on-going debate here. Re this line: "Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime." Why is it that I haven't heard anyone complain that this isn't sourced? I haven't heard any debate over the use of the word "frequent." (While people did object to "widespread" in my proposed addition). And no one has pointed out that it is unfair and biased to single out "totalitarian regimes." Yet all of these complaints have been lodged against the addition of either "major powers" or "democratic states." Same deal on the US vs. the USSR that I already pointed out. Anyway, my point is only that you can ALWAYS raise objections if you want to and some are very selective about when they choose to raise these sort of objections. Without some sort of commonsense baseline, what you can say about any topic becomes extremely limited -- to the point of worthlessness. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In reference to this edit, I am assuming (in light of the above) that there is definitely not consensus for including material on secret government mind-control programs using torture in the United States. In addition to violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, the above thread already demonstrates a lack of consensus for singling out the charges of torture raised against the US by mainstream sources, let alone wacko conspiracy theories about torture. But feel free to discuss the merits of inclusion here. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Should not be included. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
as per wp:fringe “A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication.” If this is fringe it has been referenced in three reliable sources and deserves mention. Turtleshell2go ( talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1. United Kingdom 2. USA 3. France 4. Israel 5. Iraq 6. Pakistan
and probably India and Sri Lanka. Is Iran democratic- Ahminejad was certainly voted in, although as many opposition parties were banned this is only partially true. The same can be said of Zimbabwe. Any more ? Brazil or Jamaica ? More than just two. -- Streona ( talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on Stockdale states that he did reveal information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.-- Streona ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I posted a statement about coercion upon members of the Algerian Army. I cannot source this as it was based upon a personal interview with a man who had refused to participate any more after having bayonetted a mother with a child in her arms. He was imprisoned and tortured by being fed salted food and deprived of water and then jetted by high pressure hoses. He was discharged, due to becoming medically unfit as a result of his torture. The rebels then visited him and stabbed him in the heart (which he survived). Obviously I cannot give his name or further details.-- Streona ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, except my ex client.-- Streona ( talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV means not even mentioning the mere words, let alone the international dispute of the practices of the present US government?!
In my opinion, more likely a miscomprehension of "political correctness" and a misuse of NPOV. Very sad, for the tortured, for the wikipedia and for the mentality of a (the 'ruling') part of the american society.
I have placed a link on the article Waterboarding to the wikipedia page, where it is defined as a form of torture.-- Streona ( talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no context in the text for the painting at the head of the article. What is "torture by mosquito"? Can this information be provided or another illustration substituted ?-- Streona ( talk) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to see a minor edit war breaking out over a link. I originally removed this because it was spammed here and on quite a few other pages by the organization's director. It's a POV site which doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate so long as there are other links to balancing POVs in order to present a a neutral whole. But I would ask editors to consider if there aren't better sites with a similar POV we could use instead that haven't been spammed here. In any case, as an external link it should not be in the see also section. -- SiobhanHansa 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for any edit war. I had not been aware of this organisation and working occasionally with torture survivors I found it a useful resource. Is being against torture or seeking redress for torture POV ? It is difficult to find a website to balance this - explicitly pro-torture and against justice (well, one that is not pornographic). Even if one were in favour of torture for extracting information from terrorists - as many people are - having done so, the victims would still need rehabilitation, unless the purpose of torture is something else more sinister. I do not know if it has been spammed - I assume that that implies a mechanical process of random emails, rather than just self promotion, but so what? So should it be in a new section, "External links" ?-- Streona ( talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Governments who wish to protest their personnel involved in torture from threat of legal redress should have done so by not making their activities illegal in the forst place, since this is a prerequisite for legal action. Strangely torture - whilst widely condoned by many governments - is nonetheless technically illegal in most of them - including for example, China There is already a number of organisations, such as the Medical Foundation for the care of Victims of Torture, so it has become a directory albeit of internal wiki links. On the point of Spam; does it not cease to be spam if I put it in, rather than its director? What I could do is write a separate wikipedia about Redress - as objectively as possible and then link to that.-- Streona ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
see Redress (Charitable Trust for Torture Survivors) -- Streona ( talk) 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
During the Algerian War the French produced the Ouillaume Report, which is printed in Pierre Vidal-Naquet's book "Torture, Cancer of Democracy". The USA is currently quietly pro-torture in certain circle and more inclined to discuss this than some of the traditional torture deniers. their is a separate wikipedia article on Torture in the United States. I found this http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Torture,_interrogation_and_intelligence but I am not sure of its provenance.-- Streona ( talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
regardless of dictionary definitions, would not forcing a parent to witness the toture of their child constitute torture, in it's own right? Colin.j.mackay ( talk) 08:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Distressingly common, especially under Saddam Hussein.-- Streona ( talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that the info I added about torture in Israel was deleted, and I see no evidence of an explanation. Was consensus reached to delete this info? Israel is a special case. I understand that people get tired of Israel getting singled out in a range of ways, but the issues around Israeli rules on torture are highly relevant to this page. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.
The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future". The report is currently hosted in the FAS website. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf
Utilitarianism has arguments for torture, too. The word "strong" is out of place. Who decides the argument is strong? If it is an objective quality, I would argue that it isn't strong. There is no scientific evidence supporting torture, but that isn't a fair criticism. You can't steady something like that easily. The article cited primarily talks about how torture is unnecessary rather than how torture is ineffective. Obviously I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see much in terms of "X number of people were tortured, and X number of tortures had no results." Unless I missed something, that doesn't qualify as criticizing the effectiveness of torture unless you have that kind of data. I didn't want to go willy-nilly editing the article, but I hope someone will address my concerns. The fact that utilitarianism is being used to support a poor argument (especially when utilitarianism can be used to support both sides) is mainly what annoys me.
Why do the two photographs at the start of the Article (Abu Ghraib) depict "torture" under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) (as defined in Article 1(1) thereof) rather than so-called "Article 16 acts" which are admittedly "cruel and inhuman" (and which State Parties undertake to prevent) but which nevertheless don't rise to the level of "torture" within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the UNCAT?
The Ireland v UK case (decided before the drafting of the UNCAT) is of course only persuasive and not mandatory authority for the interpretation of the UNCAT, but it suggests that the actions depicted in the photos are "Article 16" acts of "cruelty and inhumanity", rather than Article 1(1) acts of "torture." Hooding and handcuffing and being held in uncomfortable positions all would fall in the sub-torture category under Ireland v. UK. See Five techniques.
Official Text of UNCAT
Torture (US law definition) (NB: No pertinent US law deviations from UNCAT for this question)
Five techniques
Since it is controversial both as a factual matter (not clear exactly what all is being done, or not done, in the photos) and as a legal matter (where is the line between Article 1 acts of torture and Article 16 acts of bad-but-less-than-torture), it may be right to have an explanation of some sort with the pictures. There is substantial judicial opinion that the photos are not of "torture" (at least if you adopt the current definition from the major authority of the UNCAT). SixBlueFish ( talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see, so ---
I think that is a very good suggestion and improves the article's clarity, but I am not at all convinced about there being "clear agreement" that waterboarding is Article 1(1) "torture."
The current US Administration has said so (through the current AG, if I remember correctly, during his confirmation hearings?), but a lot of people in the prior Administration disagreed at the time, and probably still disagree. Also it has been used in the US military in training its own troops, and that suggests (does it?) that it is not "torture" (or at least that they don't think it is torture?).
NB: I am not taking the position that it is not torture, or that it is torture. I am questioning whether or not there is indeed "clear agreement." Those are entirely different questions of course. I think your suggestion re: moving and replacing pix is a good one on the article revision BTW. SixBlueFish ( talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
With an ironic note (p 2) that the suspect confessed to everything he was accused of after 2 mins of WB'ing. And that impressed people? So -- save all the trouble and just write down everything you accuse him of, then say "Well, we were gonna WB you, but since you'll confess to everything anyway....it's not needed... let's see, planning to blow up San Francisco Bay, hijack Brittany Spears, steal Cher's wardrobe... yep, that about wraps it up...." and skip a step. Saves a lotta work that way.)).
On the newly released (by Obama WH) memos: really bad reporting here. The headlines say that the memos "ooo, the Bush lawyers admit WB is torture." However, when you bother to read what they actually wrote (gotta read the photocopy of the actual document), they don't admit any such thing but are just assuming that it is torture, for purposes of their analysis... and the context makes it clear that they think, that it may well NOT be torture.
Blair confirmation hearing So -- Holder said "It is torture", then a few days later Obama's other nominee says "We won't use torture and we won't use WB and beyond that, I saith naught." Declining to say whether it is or is not. You gotta have good instincts in DC to know which away the wind doth blow at the time....
CNN Telephone Survey And what better way to construe a complicated legal provision, than to call up 1000 Americans who will actually talk to some telephone pollster and ask them what the answer is? (Fall of 2007)
However,
So about 15% of those who think it is torture, think it's OK to use it anyway if it helps, which is a complete rejection of the underlying premise of the UNCAT. SixBlueFish ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) SixBlueFish ( talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed the "motivations for torture" section. It was entirely unsourced. That's number one.
Number two, the "Torture in recent times" section is ridiculous. Given the worldwide media attention over the controversies surrounding the use of torture by the US in recent years, it strains credulity that that isn't even mentioned in this section. I'm not adding that (yet) because I've been through this before on this article (see above). I already know this article is "protected" by a few editors who will instantly start an edit war if anyone tries to change it. This article has many serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. -- Ashe the Cyborg ( talk) 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition that starts the page is misleading. It says "Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is...", but, in fact, the UNCAT does not define the term generally, it defines a word specifically for the scope of the rest of the document:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means
The quote includes the entire first paragraph of the UNCAT eliding just these words.
It's quite misleading to use, as a general purpose definition, a definition that explicitly disavows general applicability...especially when there are so many other general definitions available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
TJIC ( talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Torture is: (a) the intentional act or process of imposing extreme physical or mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless victim; (b) the intentional actions to substantially reduce the victim's capability to exercise autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, intiated for the purpose of breaking the victim's will. Oneofshibumi ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is determined to add this guy as a source in this wikipedia article - 'cause it's usual after a Daily Show - I strongly recommend to take a look at the vagueness and ultimately, hypocrisy, that the term "amount of pain" hides. What does that even mean? "amount of pain". Are you going to measure it with a scales? Are you going to put electrodes on the "patient"? 'Cause how are you going to do that when you also have other electrodes for pain? -- AaThinker ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
What is it in the article that warrant a template that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A no none has added a reason for the POV template to the talk page I am removing it. -- PBS ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
user:Ashe the Cyborg you have been asked to state what you think the specific issues are on this talk page several times. It is no use saying "Yes, there are many reasons given on the talk page" and "Clean-keeper One does not need to restate their arguments with every revert" when you have not mentioned one specific item and other editors are clearly perplexed as to what you think carries a non neutral point of view (bias) on this page. There has been a section on this page called "POV template" clearly dedicated to the use of the {{tl|POV} template since 4 September 2008. Now that I have moved it to the bottom of the page (so you can easily see it) please will you state clearly what is in the article that you feel it necessary to repeatedly put this template at the top of the article, and why it is you can not place {{ POV section}}in on the specific sections where you think there is a POV problem. -- PBS ( talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from user:Ashe the Cyborg and user:Philip Baird Shearer appear to have an agenda (please read discourse at the top of this page) and are not what I would describe as objective comments (I am addressing the words, not the two humans, only partially organic as one of them may be, here). In my view, based on Wikipedia policy, the neutrality tag should stay and someone that is not invested in the topic should be editing the article. Removing the neutrality tag because "no-one has presented argument for a while" is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK, and does not remove the existence of the dispute particularly if the article has not substantially changed since the dispute comments - Socrates' arguments are still presentable, and he hasn't made any for a while! The neutrality tag in this article, according to Wikipedia policy, is not "drive-by tagging" as arguments have definitely been presented for two sides at the top of this page. Removing contributions without heeding the Wikipedia verifiability policy is counter-productive, if the statement has a verifiable source it should not be removed based on "it's not true" or "it's not a fact" or "it's disputed" or "it's not the full story" or "it's selective and therefore POV", according to my reading of Wikipedia policy, rather one can present other verifiable sources to complete the picture as much as possible ("all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - note the use of the word "all" in the Wikipedia POV policy). As there is much politicised controversy in the US over the definition of torture, recently, I should think it would be a disservice for there to be no objective mention of this in the article and it would appear to be entirely relevant (note: it is mentioned in the Waterboarding article on Wikipedia). ABCGi ( talk) 05:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |