NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Catalogs [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition The policies and practices authorized for interrogation of suspected terrorists by the United States Department of Defense and the United States intelligence community during the George W. Bush Administration [d] [e]

Temporary request: Since I couldn't create and test the catalog and other subpage in userspace, I ask for a few hours before anyone starts editing the table/catalog, and comment on the discussion page there. This is just long enough for me to make moves of text with very complex formatting. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


As first placed here, this article is a U.S.-centric, and U.S.-centric to specific leadership and time. It is subordinate to Intelligence interrogation, U.S., which is subordinate to, in turn, Interrogation. There is a parallel set of articles for Extrajudicial detention, Extrajudicial detention, U.S. and Extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration.

The separate article on torture is relevant to certain techniques, although, in the interest of family-friendly policy, that does not attempt to go into more than basic information needed to categorize a technique. In this article, the list of specific approved techniques is on a subpage, both to keep down the size of the main article and to avoid details unless the reader really wants them. Are disclaimers appropriate? See, for example, waterboarding interrogation techniques for further detail, some about specific prisoners to be added, as well as analysis of the legality of the technique.


My primary intent was to consider primary sources (e.g., Supreme Court decisions, declassified documents, treaties, etc.) as the preferred source of commentary. Whenever possible, when a news report is used, there are at least some confirmatory primary sources. For example, while the list of CIA "enhanced interrogation" techniques comes from ABC News, it is at least correlated with heavily redacted CIA documents provided, under the Freedom of Information Act, to the American Civil Liberties Union. Also supporting that is the letter of a U.S. Attorney to U.S. District Court stating that a criminal investigation was in process, the CIA had destroyed videotapes, and that less redacted documents were to be made available.

More in the extraordinary rendition, whenever there is a reference to a Supreme Court, etc., decision, the decision or court pleadings are cited if at all possible. Analysis by journalists and by legal writers outside peer-reviewed legal journals supplement these. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)