Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Published on November 17, 2009 By taltamir In Politics

I wonder if I will get banned from wikipedia for this. In the water boarding article, waterboarding is declared torture (if looking to edit, there is a warning that a "wikipedia discussion" declared it to be so. Only evidence supporting such a claim is presented. If you go through the entire article, way near the bottom, is a short section that details the use of waterboarding on american troops to toughen them up... yap, its a training exercise for the military.

Well, lets do a little experiment. I copied the following line:

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [13] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.[14]

It serves as an "intro" to the section about US training. I pasted it into the "preview" section (aka, the top of the article that gives broad information about the topic; and already contains info about  Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[15] While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage tolungsbrain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[3] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[7]

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[16][17] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandalAl-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh MohammedAbu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[18][19] To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.[20][21] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided the U.S. government with information about a potential 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[22]

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[22][23]

The new text reads:

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage tolungsbrain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[3] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[7]

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [14] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.[15]

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[16][17] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandalAl-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh MohammedAbu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[18][19] To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.[20][21] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided the U.S. government with information about a potential 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[22]

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[22][23]

So, will this edit stand? will it be reversed? should I expect to be banned from wikipedia? We shall soon see.

 


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 18, 2009

I like your style.

 

on Nov 18, 2009

Tal, you're going to make some liberals mad!

 

 

Do it again.

on Nov 19, 2009

it has been removed.

on Nov 19, 2009

It has been removed by an administartor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stephan_Schulz

because: "Undue weight for the Lede. Training is already mentioned in the last sentence of the lede".

It was already mentioned? He is referring to this probably:

[qupte]In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[20][21]

[/quote]

Training? Training of who? how is it used for training? From the sentence it sounds more like trainees are getting to waterboard enemy combatants. There is no mention that it is actually american soldiers who are being waterboarded to train them. (which, obama voted yes on when it last came up when he was a senator).

on Nov 19, 2009

It should've been removed because it caused the introductory section to be contradictory:

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [14] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.

In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.

 

In other words it hasn't been confirmed if the first paragraph is still true.

on Nov 19, 2009

And this is why many colleges do not accept Wikipedia as a reference. It's a starting place though if you want to sift through their linked references.

on Nov 19, 2009

as it stands, this line in the intro:

In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.

Assumes prior knowledge that all US forces use it as training. Because it is referring to training "not being confirmed" without explaining WHAT training is being referenced.

But what do you expect from a wikipedia moderator.

At least they have a consensus that waterboarding IS torture to the point where no opposing points are even allowed [/sarcasm]

on Nov 20, 2009

At least they have a consensus that waterboarding IS torture to the point where no opposing points are even allowed

I have heard what the terrorists do to Jews and Americans they capture.

If they ever get me, I will pray that I will be subjected to everything the Americans subject their prisoners to and to nothing else.

That's how concerned I am about what happens in Guantanamo.

 

on Nov 20, 2009

And this is why many colleges do not accept Wikipedia as a reference. It's a starting place though if you want to sift through their linked references.

Wikipedia is all right and works surprisingly well.

The problem is people changing articles for political reasons. "Terrorists" become "militants" because it is not politically correct any more to define people by their profession if doing so would destroy moral relativism.

 

on Nov 20, 2009

The problem is the ADMINISTRATORS changing articles for political reasons... because they are appointed by the singular, very liberal, controlling founder of wikipedia who has completely control over it. Wikipedia is the pet project of ONE man; it is a despotism.

on Nov 23, 2009

taltamir
The problem is the ADMINISTRATORS changing articles for political reasons... because they are appointed by the singular, very liberal, controlling founder of wikipedia who has completely control over it. Wikipedia is the pet project of ONE man; it is a despotism.

I use Wikipedia a lot, but I do not accept anything without a source and then ultimately refer to the source when I use material.

One problem I see is that many Wikipedia authors subscribe to the moral relativist theory of who is a "terrorist": one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One can only imagine how silly Wikipedia would look if they took the same approach to other professions, like baker or miller.

 

on Nov 23, 2009

The whole debate about what torture is or isn't is tideous and ridiculous and just smacks of belated justification for something that was known to be  ineffective and illegal to boot from the very start.

Here is a great parody of the debate. LINK

 

on Nov 23, 2009

The whole debate about what is torture and what isn't is tideous and ridiculous.

Tell that to the people who stage demonstrations because they are worried about a few hundred terrorists.

I know that if terrorists ever capture me, an innocent civilian, I will pray that all they do to me is what those activists call "torture".

As long as what the terrorists get in Guantanamo remains a best-case scenario for those captured by the other side, I really couldn't care less whether they are being "tortured" or not. Human rights are great but there have to be priorities.

 

on Nov 23, 2009

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar". You saw under Hitler what happened if priorities in that respect or rather exemptions from that are made. I am not comparing the US to nazi Germany or Bush to Hitler - that is outrageous.

But the core problem is "person A (terrorist or suspected terrorist) has certain constitutional rights that forbid the use of certain methods and/or hinder our investigatiion, so lets just classify him as an enemy combattant to avoid the whole human rights weightonourfeet that only prevents us from doing what has to be done". The US exempted persons from their constitutional rights and made it legal, or rather artificially created a legal vacuum for a certain group - and that is the parallel to nazi germany.

You can never exclude persons from those rights, for no reason. It is an inviolable law. And constitutional and human rights do not come with citizenship either, they are not privileges that are granted and can be taken away at will.

I don't  really care about the detainees in Guantanamo bay as such, I don't know them and the US is hardly a despotic regime where human rights are routinly ignored. But I find it alarming that many on JU seems to view "human rights" as a burden or something that has little importance and can be ignored or downplayed and that they fail to realize that diluting those principles could have devastating consequences. Instead my "ad nauseam" argument is interpreted as siding and protecting the terrorists - which is ridiculous.

 

on Nov 23, 2009

Utemia, I understand your agrument about if you take one person's rights away where does it stop from there.

The thing is we wouldn't be in this situation if the terrorist (I am referring to the ones that attack civilians.  I will not call them enemy combatants. Those Sudan 'pirates' that kidnap people ARE NOT pirates they are terrorists or one that Pakistan bomb that just Monday Morning ripped through that market.) would attack armies BUT instead are targetting civilians. 

The point of terrorism is for you to do what they want.  They will get it through breaking human rights.  I shouldn't have the fear that I am going to walk outside my door and have a bullet lodged into my head nor should I have the fear to go to the store and have it blown up. Now that's not fair. 

In Gaza, people had to always look over their shoulders.  Had to take note of everyone that was around them especially if you were not hamas.  You knew that someone at some time was going to try to do something.

Instead of picking at the stem, why don't you go for the root. 

The root cause of this. Several terrorist are going to be appearing in federal court in NY to make a statement of why they hate america.  You know what the liberal media is going to eat this up. Why should they be allowed to make statements of hate or threating statements.  I can essentially predicte what they will say 'If you stop occupying or aiding occupiers this would not happen.  BUT since you are your children will not be safe. yadda yadda non-sense.... you all will die.'

If people in the States are going to have to listen to their trash because liberal media is going to force it down our throats of awww look at those 'victims' (meaning the terrorist).  I think we should allow the families of those who lost someone to speak.  I say that we should allow them to say how much it has emotionally impacted their lives.

It comes down to we could give in to all their demands but that's not going to matter.  They hate the west.  They hate all the smut and trash we put out (heck I don't like all the pornograpic crap that is out there but we have people that push the freedom of speech).  Radical Islamic terrorist hate how hedionistic the West is.

I don't see you protesting the bombing that happened in Pakistan or writing an article about it.   Where are those people's rights?  I have friends in Gaza who were killed because they weren't muslims.  Where are their rights?  Where were the victims of 9/11 rights?  All of these victims right to life was taken away. Yet I don't see any discussion or discourse about how these people rights were taken away! Who is going to take up the fight for these people? Instead we are taking up the rights of those who viciously have taken away the rights of those people to life.

 

3 Pages1 2 3