User talk:George Swan/sandbox/United States Army Field Manual on interrogation

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Fountain pen.png
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of this version. George Swan 10:21, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.


I went back to an old version, so as to avoid the "from wikipedia" tag. The article therefore is about two years out of date... George Swan 10:30, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Constable's decision to move disputed article to Discussion page for the moment

A Constable has considered an Editor's request to delete the main article. He has decided that the Editor's decription of the reasons for deleting the article is at least partially incorrect: there is absolutely no evidence that the article is a "tirade against the Bush administration". It seems to the Constable that the article is actually very even-handed and neutral. The Constable is incapable of addressing the other issues raised of whether the facts are inaccurate or out-of-date. If either is the case, then they are susceptible to editing by others. The Constable feels that there is no reason for an article such as this NOT to be a CZ article, providing it meets Editorial norms. He is therefore placing it here for future editing until it DOES meet Editorial standards.

The article below may be edited, expanded, and improved by any Citizen; it may NOT be deleted except by a Constable ...said Hayford Peirce (talk)

Text that has been removed from main article to be held here for future editing

(PD) Photo: R.D. Ward
General John Kimmons, on September 6th, 2006, when the most recent revision of the DoD most recent Field Manual for interrogators was released.

The United States Army Field Manual on interrogation instructs military interrogators how to conduct effective interrogations while conforming with U.S. and international law. The Field Manual was sometimes known by the code FM 34-52. The most recent revision was renamed Field Manual FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

== Interrogations during the "global war on terror" == et

During the American war on terror the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued "extended interrogation techniques", that went farther than those authorized in the Army field manual. The extended techniques stimulated debate, both within the Bush administration, and outside it. And various revisions of the extended techniques were issued.

Rumsfeld intended the extended techniques to be used only on the captives the United States classified as "illegal combatants". But extended interrogation techniques were adopted in Iraq, even though captives there were entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. General Geoffrey Miller, who was then the director of interrogation of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, and some of his staff were sent to Iraq to help transfer their interrogation experience. Military Intelligence troops who had been using extended techniques in Afghanistan, notably Captain Carolyn Wood.

General Ricardo Sanchez, the CO of American forces in Iraq, after input from Miller and his team, and from Captain Wood, issued his own set of extended techniques.

On April 28, 2005 Rumsfeld announced that the Army would be revising the manual. The revised manual would have spelled out more clearly which interrogation techniques were prohibited.

On July 25, 2005 Senator John McCain tabled an amendment to the a military spending bill, intended to restrict all US government interrogators from using interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army field manual.

On October 20, 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney met with McCain to try to convince him to agree that his amendment should only apply to military interrogators. Cheney wanted to continue to allow civilian interrogators, working for US intelligence agencies, to use more extended interrogation techniques. McCain did not agree.

Plans to revise the manual to allow extended techniques

On April 28, 2005 Rumsfeld announced that the Army would be revising the manual. The revised manual would have spelled out more clearly which interrogation techniques were prohibited.

On December 14, 2005, the New York Times reported that the Army Field Manual had been rewritten by the Pentagon. Previously, the manual's interrogation techniques section could be read freely on the internet. But the new edition's includes 10 classified pages in the interrogation technique section, leaving the public clueless about what the government considers not to be torture. [1]

On June 5 2006 the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon's revisions will remove the proscription against "humiliating and degrading treatment", and other proscriptions from article 3 of the third Geneva Convention.[2] [3] The LA Times reports that the State Department has argued against the revisions because of the effect it will have on the world's opinion of the United States.

Classified addendum

According to the New York Times, unlike previous versions, a draft of the new version of the manual from late 2005 contained a ten page classified addendum.[4] The Jurist reported on a draft with classified sections on May 5, 2006.[5]

September 6 2006 release

The new version was released on September 6, 2006.[6][7][8]

  • The Jurist reported that the final version of the manual contained no classified sections.[8]
  • The Jurist reported that the final version of the manual explicitly reference common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[8]
  • The Jurist reported that the manual applied to all captives of the US military custody, and to all captives of the CIA, in military custody, but it would not apply to captives of the CIA in CIA custody.[8]

According to The Jurist[8]:

After the US Supreme Court's June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, however, the Pentagon said that the Geneva Conventions would be applied to all detainees held in US military custody around the world, reversing the Defense Department's policy of classifying detainees as "enemy combatants" outside the protections of Article 3.

See also

Online versions


  1. New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue, New York Times, December 14 2005 - mirror
  2. Geneva references omitted from revised Army interrogation manual, The Jurist, June 5 2006
  3. Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule, Los Angeles Times, June 5 2006
  4. Eric Schmitt. New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue, New York Times, December 14, 2005. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  5. Jamie Sterling. Revised Army interrogation manual held up by secrecy concerns, The Jurist, Wednesday, May 03, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  6. DoD News Briefing with Deputy Assistant Secretary Stimson and Lt. Gen. Kimmons from the Pentagon, Global Security, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  7. Army Publishes New Intelligence Manual, Global Security, September 6, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Jeannie Shawl. New US Army interrogation manual mandates Geneva rules, The Jurist, Wednesday, September 06, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.

External links

Discussion moved from article page

The entire text of this article has been moved by a Constable to the Discussion page, where it may be freely edited and improved by any Citizen. Hayford Peirce 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to "improve" an article about something that doesn't exist. Retitle this article and it might be improved. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Military Workgroup Editor
Well, that's exactly what I was going to suggest -- why don't you Move it to the correct place? And then, if you feel like doing so, add perhaps a single sentence to the lede along the lines of, "Although the Bush administration, and many media sources, frequently referred to a "USAFM", such a thing does not, nor did not, ever exist under that particular name. The correct title for this is/was/should be so-and-so." Once this has been done, I will be very happy to delete this incorrectly titled article. Hayford Peirce 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a great compromise, but, without getting into personalities, when I've suggested that before, there was significant pushback from an author. If this is an acceptable solution, much of the problem goes away. I'm not sure who would "rule" on it, but if I do this sort of cleanup, can we call this an expert ruling that would be enforced, and not have a lot of continuing argument?
In fact, I'd be willing to leave this title, if it essentially became a disambiguation page:
Although the Bush administration, and many media sources, frequently referred to a "USAFM", such a thing does not, nor did not, ever exist under that particular name."
(rolling eyes) we could almost use a template about "Although the Bush administration, and many media sources, frequently referred to a "$FOO", such a thing does not, nor did not, ever exist under that particular name." As an example, I'd do this to chatter (signals intelligence), and then link to traffic analysis. Traffic analysis indeed needs enhancement, as it really doesn't deal with the intelligence discipline; NSA has a whole traffic analysis career management field. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue of orphaned articles on individual prisoners, documents, etc. is a separate but not unrelated issue....said Howard C. Berkowitz (talk)

a proposal to Howard and George to end this stalemate

I think both of you would agree that there's no sense in having this article sitting in the Discussion page. Let's see if we can agree on some small, initial things.

There is a Wikipedia article called "FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation" -- it has at least one, and possibly many more, redirects from something very similar to the name of the present CZ article.

Its first paragraph reads: "The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation, sometimes known by the military nomenclature FM 34-52, is a 177 page manual describing to military interrogators how to conduct effective interrogations while conforming with US and international law. It has been replaced by FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations."

I have asked Howard about this and he agrees, more or less, that this is indeed the case, although not necessarily up to date.

Howard states flatly, from his position as a Military Editor, that there is no such thing actually called the "United States Army Field Manual on interrogation".

George, as far as I know, you have not refuted Howard on this point, nor have you sourced any evidence that such a manual really exists.

If this manual, under that name does not exist, then we cannot have an article claiming that it does, particularly when that is the name of the article itself.

Therefore, what I propose is this: that the two of you agree upon the name of a renamed article. Then one of you MOVE the present article to that new name.

I suggest that you then rewrite the first paragraph, putting in more or less the same info that is in the WP article. PLUS a statement, or two or three or even ten sentences, saying that the American public, media, and Bus administration have misused this phrase, that it really doesn't exist, and that it has taken on a life of its own but that, actually, IT DOESN'T EXIST -- except, and note this carefully, Howard -- in the form noted in the renamed article.

Please don't argue with ME about this -- I don't want to hear any arguments from either of you. Just sit down for 5 minutes and come to an agreement on the name of the MOVED article.

George, if you won't come to an agreement with Howard about this, I will have to conclude that you have no interest in creating a successful article and I will strongly recommend to Larry that we carry out Howard's request for deletion.

So, guys, please get together on this! Once the article has been moved, and redirects created, I will then delete the remaining pages that have now been blanked.

Thanks! Hayford Peirce 01:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to do something; as mentioned above, there are really at least three topics mixed here. It hadn't registered, in the first note on the discussion page, that this went back to a two-year old article to avoid "from Wikipedia".
May I plead that when these are current events, old articles are a real problem, and it's better to have "from Wikipedia"? Further, when an article cites a document or a court case, it really helps to have some solid referencing to the primary document, not news reports and politicians' statements about it.
Modifying some material from above, I propose #1 to replace this, with seealsos to the others:
  1. For information on current and past top-level U.S. policy on interrogation, see U.S. policy on intelligence interrogation (this is a LOT broader than war on terror). Possibly -- and this is a substantial piece of work: For a bibliography of U.S. guidance and policy, active and past, on interrogation catalog/bibliography subpage' It's not going to be dramatic; it's not going to have pictures of people waving documents that can't be read.
  2. For general information on intelligence interrogation, see human-source intelligence and subarticles such as Elicitation (human-source intelligence) Howard C. Berkowitz 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The manual was routinely referred to as the "US Army field manual on interrogation". John McCain referred to it under this name when he first proposed what eventually became known as the "Detainee Treatment Act".
Can I agree with this article being renamed, with a redirect from "US Army field manual on interrogation" to whatever new name is decided upon? I have absolutely no concern with a rename, provided the common, colloquial name redirects to the actual article.
Do either of you object to judicious use of redirection? My recollection is that the manual has been revised three times in the last couple of decades, and that the technical name for the current manual is different than the technical name for the two earlier versions. So, that would require at least two redirections. George Swan 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you see as the purpose of this article? The phrase is relevant within the context of the Detainee Treatment Act, but otherwise, the topic is covered under human-source intelligence and subordinate articles. This article, for example, does not actually discuss what is in the manual, but some of what has been said about manuals in general. There is discussion of drafts that never went into force, yet other manuals and policies are not mentioned. Are you trying to establish what an Army interrogator does, as in the requirements of Career Management Field 97E?
I will accept a redirect, but only to an article says that anyone who says there is a manual, by that name, is wrong; it is a catchphrase. I am not going to agree it is the common colloquial name, at least, by anyone who has been familiar with the intelligence literature for more than the last couple of decades. The manual is not the key point, but the interrogation policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Howard, In your speedy deletion request you wrote: "For a more detailed and accurate coverage of the subject, see Human-source intelligence." I just took a brief look at that article, and it raises some questions for me, which I pose here in the spirit of collegiality.
I noticed that the Human-source intelligence article does not mention John McCain, or Congress, or several other things this article addresses. Is it your position that all coverage of the discussion of interrogation issues, in the Press, and in the US Congress, is outside of the scope of the Citizendium?
If you are willing to agree that coverage of the discussion of the role this manual played in the discussion of interrogation issues, in the Press, and in the US Congress, does lie within the scope of the Citizendium, where do you believe it should be covered? I know you have a limited interest in press reports. Nevertheless, here is a google news search that shows over six dozen distinct references to the manual within the last month. So, I don't understand your statement that the manual is only relevant to the Detainee Treatment Act.
I am frankly a bit confused by your comment: "I am not going to agree it is the common colloquial name, at least, by anyone who has been familiar with the intelligence literature for more than the last couple of decades." Who do you see the intended readership of the citizendium? My recollection is that one of the citizendium documents said the intended readership was your average first year university student, who, I suggest, are rarely going to be familiar with the intelligence literature of the last couple of decades.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting, for one minute, that we should cater to popular misconceptions among our readers, nor that you and the other editors should cater to the popular misconceptions of authors like myself. Does the role this manual played in Press and Congressional discussions of interrogation issues fit within the scope of the Citizendium? If it does, and the most important thing about that coverage should be correcting the misconception that FM-2-22-3 was ever officially known as "US Army field manual on interrogation", shouldn't that coverage at least acknowledge that common name, provided it then addresses the name confusion that troubles you?
Howard, like you, I have experience from the wikipedia. One of the conclusions I came to there was that any topic, no matter how controversial, could be covered in a neutral manner, if those working on them were prepared to make enough effort. Some wikipedia contributors would sometimes claim some topics were "inherently biased". I'd really appreciate it if you clarified whether or not you think some topics are "inherently biased".
You described this article as a "tirade". I thought I made that extra effort to write from a neutral point of view. Maybe you don't think it would be a good use of your time explain what aspects of this article you didn't find to be neutral. But please understand I am honestly perplexed by this description.
You have used the term "pushback" here, and in other discussions. I have repeated, many times, that it has always been my intention to be totally compliant with the Citizendium's hierarchy of Editors and Authors, and to graciously accept every direction from editors that they are authorized to give.
My understanding of the Citizendium structure is that authors are entitled to seek guidance and advice from editors. In fact, I think asking questions may sometimes be absolutely required, if authors are going to try to intelligently comply with editors' direction. I encourage you to regard the questions above as good-faith attempts to understand your position, and what it implies about how I should think about contributions I make to the project in future. George Swan 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat what I thought was a clarification. I have nothing against "...Press and Congressional discussions of interrogation issues fit within the scope of the Citizendium?"
Such issues belong in an article titled something like "U.S. policy on interrogation issues". It doesn't belong in an article about a document. An article about the document, or the closest correct document, should cover what is in the document, or, even better, put that content in the context of the discipline and the many relevant documents.
"...the most important thing about that coverage should be correcting the misconception that FM-2-22-3 was ever officially known as "US Army field manual on interrogation", shouldn't that coverage at least acknowledge that common name...?" I don't think that's the most important thing, but it is an issue that belongs in an article about the policy.
If I may try to interpret, I have nothing against neutral discussions of policies and controversies. I have a substantial objection to making articles, titled about some specific thing, become criticisms (and support) of policies, whether the article is about a manual or prisoner. The article about a subject should be about the subject.
I am offering to have an article about policy, appropriately titled. Indeed, there are aspects of a policy, indeed critical about the Bush Administration, which have not been mentioned. There are other articles that have the same problem and same solution: write about policy and specifics separately and link them. When writing about a policy, be comprehensive, which also means that it should be clear what each citation adds to that discussion -- not several in a row. When there are relevant primary documents, such as position papers, legislation, manuals, etc., be sure they are cited, and discussed there or in a linked article about the subject of the primary document. A court case may be completely related to the policy, and should be cited (and discussed) within the policy article; secondary reports only about it aren't really comprehensive, which is a difference between CZ and WP.
There are several aspects about the discipline of human-source intelligence, such as its various subsets, such as voluntary debriefing, interrogation of unwilling sources, etc. The most important thing in those cases is to have some idea of the techniques, the rationale for and criticism of techniques, and the provenance of the techniques, be they Sedgwick Tourison or FM 2-22.3 or HREX or Roger Trinquier.
These can then link to the policy and criticism article(s). The two categories are related but distinct. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

a follow-up Constable comment to George and Howard

Would you two guys please stop fighting the last war? You both sound like the Bourbons, of whom it was said, "They forgot nothing and learned nothing." Stop arguing about what each of you have said in the last 6 months about this article and start working to improve it.

George: you have to realize that Howard is absolutely correct when he says that no official source called this manual whatever it is John McCain and a million other people called it. So let Howard rename it. Or YOU rename it to something that actually exists. THEN, Howard and George, you can put in three paragraphs, or a dozen, or whatever you want, saying, "However, John McCain used the term so and so; George Bush used the term so and so; the New York Times used the term so and so; all of them were mistaken in their usage, but they USED it."

What is so hard about doing that?

And put in a *million* redirects to whatever the article has been renamed.

Once we've got the articled *renamed*, then you can argue about exactly what material goes into it.

George, and Howard, this is a MOVE to a renamed article -- it is NOT a merge with the article that Howard has already written about Human Int or whatever it's called. We will therefore have two separate articles.

Please -- come out from behind the Maginot Line and just come up with a suitable name; make the MOVE, and I'll then make the DELETEs.


And, please, BOTH of you, take an extra 10 seconds when you make comments here to get your indentations correct -- it really would make life a lot simpler for people who are trying to read these comments and figuring out who is responding to what! Hayford Peirce 16:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, I disagree it is a move, because a simple move perpetuates the idea there is a specific and constant manual to which McCain and others referred. Even in that restricted case, there were a set of documents, revisions, and legal opinions.
I propose a split: the policy aspects indeed go to a new article, but the documentation aspects do merge with articles dealing with the subject of the document. Interestingly, this article here really never goes into the contents or lineage of the manual, but what people are saying about the manual. Both topics are appropriate, but they are different. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-hand, that sounds like a reasonable proposal, but, of course, I know nothing about the subject. Just to make it clearer for me (and George, too, I guess) WHICH article, under WHICH NAME, would have the lede paragraph saying: "There is no such thing as this flippin' manual that George Bush and everyone else under the sun has been talking about for 5 years"? Just give us an example of what you propose, it's not necessarily the final Move or Rename or Whatever. Hayford Peirce 18:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've started (or will start) some explicit pieces on concepts here; see eduction, interrogation, elicitation and debriefing for background.
I propose a new article, without any baggage, that will have that lede — as a first suggestion, U.S. policy on intelligence interrogation; I'll start a working draft and the name can change. That certainly can include criticism, and the lede can contain a reference, perhaps not in the first statement, to the "FMOII". I'd probably refer to the Detainee Treatment Act, which also needs refinement, is the "hook" in the first sentence, and mention this became especially controversial with the post-9/11 George W. Bush Administration. That same article, however, needs to have the broad context of controversies toward interrogation, including the "dirty war" in South America, attempts to develop coercive techniques in the Cold War, etc. There is material in thought reform that is pertinent, as well as in human-source intelligence. Do we have any law enforcement experts to add that perspective? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for a new name...

The image of the manual, on the day it was released, bears a title page that says:

FM 2-22-3 (FM 34-52)
Field Manual - Human Intelligence Collector Operations

So, should the possible candidates for the new name include the following? If none of these are chosen, can I assume they will all redirect to the new name of the article?

Cheers! George Swan 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because of this constant change in titles, I am opposed to any candidate article, or redirect, that refers to a document title, rather than a subject. There are actually more permutations than you list, to say nothing of even earlier FMs in the general area. I also note there are no mentions of Department of Defense Directives or DoD Instructions, which are the actual policy documents; these are supplemented by Executive Orders in some cases.

Actually, you will find some versions that refer to FM 2-22-3 and 2-22.3. Many, if not all of these, will appear in references within the article(s), so the search engine will retrieve them on a page, rather than title, match. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A general question about renamings...

I have a general question about renamings, like this one. If a new name is picked, am I getting the correct impression that this article, and this discussion, will be deleted? The other possibilities would be:

  • for United States Army Field Manual on interrogation to be moved from this name to the new name, preserving the revision history;
  • that the material from this article that it is decided lies within the project's scope be cut and pasted into a brand new article, and this article be changed into a redirection to that new article -- which also preserves the revision history.

How important is it to preserve the revision history, in general?

Richard Jensen, bless him, found some good faith attempts I made on some topics, and rewrote them so thoroughly that not one word of my original contributions remained. For one of those articles he didn't like the title I had initially picked, so he started a new article on that particular topic, and redirected the stub I started to his new article. Since not one word of my original contribution remained, and my original contribution was that of an amateur, while his was longer, better written, and the work of a highly experienced, credentialed professional, there would have been no loss if my original contribution was deleted.

I'd like to be basically egoless about this. It is the project that should come first.

But I think there is another possible concern. Some of my contributions on the Citizendium have been brand new, not previously published on the wikipedia. Other contributions I have made do contain passages I previously published on the wikipedia. If some of the passages I wrote, that I had previously published on the wikipedia, end up remaining in a new article, and this article is deleted, removing its revision history, someone could conceivably notice that wikipedia and citizendium articles included duplicate passages, with no documentation showing that they were contributed by a single individual. Maybe it is not that likely that someone will notice. But, since I don't understand why an article like this one would be deleted, when a new name was picked, I see this as an argument for redirection, then possibly apply a lock to prevent future editing, rather than deletion.

Cheers! George Swan 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me distinguish between history and revision history, and make a proposal. At various times, the Editor-in-chief, Constables, and Editors have put boxed information, such as ground rules, at the top of a talk page. I see no reason not to have such a box at the top of a future article, which gives a narrative of the way the article came about. I have much more of a problem in keeping, even locked and with redirects, articles that have incorrect titles, since that will tend to bring them up in search engines.
I am far less concerned with detailed Wikipedia versus Citizendium history than having precise content in Citizendium. If there is a new article that draws on earlier contribution, that can be included in the summary, but I really object to keeping incorrect article titles in an encyclopedia. Reluctantly, I could see an extended disambiguation page for "United States Army Field Manual on interrogation", with introductory text saying that this was an informal term, and then explanations of the articles that actually cover the relevant and separate policy implications of the phrase, and articles that cover techniques that refer to the many documents, by their precise title.
The policy article needs, without question, to refer to the actual policies, such as "Department of Defense Directive 3115.09, DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning", as well as legislation such as the Detainee Treatment Act. Such an article can refer to public statements about a "United States Army Field Manual on interrogation", but it must be in context. Further, an article about policies cannot limit itself to the Guantanamo and Bush periods alone, but needs to cover things such as MIS-Y, the various CIA Cold War programs such as ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA and KUBARK, U.S. sponsored training of security/police interrogators in Latin America and Southeast Asia, etc. There may well be links to other countries' policies and practices, including the purges under Stalin, the British general Security Service (MI5) and Double-Cross System, the work of Donald Hebb at McGill University/Canadian Defense Research Board, Asian Communist thought reform, etc.
If I may be permitted a general comment, to be encyclopedic about these topics, one cannot center on recent events alone. This is not to protect the United States; some of these earlier matters are not well known and are not flattering. When article titles are wrong, they should be deleted. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Clarification please, are you saying you would not object to having redirections to whatever new article title we arrive at, from: FM 2-22-3, FM 34-52, Field Manual 2-22-3, Field Manual 34-52, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, or Field Manual - Human Intelligence Collector Operations -- but you do object to a redirection from United States Army Field Manual on interrogation? And the reason you object is that someone doing a web search might see the incorrect title -- ignore that it is a redirection -- and think it is the "real name" of the document? How would that be different than that web searcher noticing any of the other redirections? George Swan 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, I'm not suggesting there would be any specific articles on any specific manual. If one wants information on the manual, one can read the manual. The value of an encyclopedia is to get analysis and synthesis of the subject.
I really don't want to keep arguing about naming, redirection, etc., which are essentially mechanics. Content is my concern, which is about policies and techniques. In contrast, it does make sense to have articles on specific legislation or court cases with stable names (we need an actual article on, for example, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). I am extremely hesitant, however, to put what are essentially ever-changing and ephemeral document designations into the persistent categories of articles. In this case, Field Manuals are not, in reality, the definitive policy documents; that assumption is part of my difficulty with this approach. If one actually wanted to deal with policy formulation, Department of Defense Directives and Executive Orders are more stable. There is also a family of Presidential documents that, unfortunately, change nomenclature with each administration; National Security Decision Directives, National Security Action Memoranda, Presidential Directives, etc., all reflect the same general process. I do not want any article titled "Field Manual anything".Howard C. Berkowitz 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Term not used by Obama AdministrationF

For further substantiation that the title of this article is imprecise, Barack Obama's executive order on lawful interrogation uses the terminology:

From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.[1]

Note all the various manuals listed, which, in themselves, are not exhaustive. To me, this is further argument that it makes no sense to try to have articles titled for, as librarians call them, "ephemeral" document designations. It is reasonable to have titles and identifiers in article text, where they will be found by search engines either on CZ or outside. In my opinion as a Military Editor, with quite detailed familiarity with U.S. government document naming and revision, I request we stop the discussion of redirects for article names. Such redirection is not necessary to find the information and introduces much complexity if it attempts to be exhaustive (FM vs Field Manual? "2 22.3", 2-22.3, 2.22.3, 2-22-3?") Howard C. Berkowitz 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suppose, based on the above (Obama's directive), we had an article called Army Field Manual -- nothing more, nothing less. THEN had about 50 redirects to it from every imaginable title? (With, of course, the text I have previously suggested, about the misuse of the phrase.) Hayford Peirce 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to cut to the chase, and stop chasing a non-issue. Generic referencing of Field Manual (not Army Field Manual; the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have different names for comparable documents. On the other hand, it's hard to drive a ship through a field) makes it worse, and why I want to put an end to this "Field Manual" article title argument. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Field Manuals, on topics from artillery to bridge construction to helicopter employment to zoonoses (well, there are veterinary medicine FMs. So sue me for going for Z). Field Manuals are not just for intelligence, interrogation, etc. Their designation goes through "styles": what are now the 2- series for intelligence used to be the 30-series (2 is actually more sensible to someone inside the system). There are variations to have classified supplements.
Deal with subjects, not document titles, in articles. Does it really make sense to have a generic Field Manual, which will pick up "FM 3-09.70 Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for M109A6 Howitzer (Paladin) Operations", referenced in existing articles? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Howard, I understand your concerns, and they are valid. But I think that you are nevertheless being willfully pedantic here. I just did a Google for "Army Field Manual" and it returned millions of hits. I then added "+torture" to it and it returned 152,000 hits. That tells me that people are trying to find info about this. CZ is, supposedly, in the business of furnishing correct, precise, exact info. What is so hard about having an article called "Army Field Manual" in which YOU EDUCATE THEM? Tell the people who end up there, what they should REALLY be understanding. TEACH THEM. Write other article if you like, with more, and better info in them, but why not have an article with training wheels on it to get them started. All of this, to me, is like someone adamantly, over and over, refusing to have an article called "Websters" because, for one thing, it's in the public domain, and two, the most well-known one is actually "Merriam-Websters", and for a third thing, well, fill it in yourself. Hayford Peirce 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line: "Army Field Manual" covers vastly more than this subject, and I personally will not write everything in the Military Workgroup to be Guantanamo, Bush, or War on Terror specific. Putting in "Army Field Manual" + "howitzer" gives only 2120 hits, but, perhaps, that's because people who write articles on actual manuals know that isn't the title.
I've objected to trying to "educate" in articles about things that most informed people would call "conspiracy theories". "Training wheels", here, is rather like the "Bad Spellers' Dictionary", in which one looks up words by incorrect titles. I don't think I'm obligated to write tutorials that start in the middle of a media/politician incorrect phrase. As I see my responsibility as an editor, it's to be sure what we have is accurate. This is not. If that's pedantic, so be it. If someone wants to write a tutorial and have it be accurate, more power to them. Silly me, I thought it might more useful to write about what the actual policies, court decisions, and historical context might be; straightening out the misphrasings of George W. Bush is too reminscent of a task for Sisyphus or Hercules. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The matter is the policy, not a certain document that no one actually followed

Please see intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration for a discussion of what actual policies were in effect, which were not tied to a specific manual and included a good deal not in the manual. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we bring this to a close?

Please look at Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration/Catalog for the techniques that were actually used and authorized. It should give a reasonable perspective that:

  • Techniques were used that were never in any U.S. Army Field Manual
  • FM 34-52 is one of the documents that has been called the "U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation", but not the only U.S. Army manual on the subject

I believe that the Catalog, and certainly the Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration, either does now, or can easily reflect, all substantive content in this article. My personal preference would be to complete the merging and delete this article, since the term "U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation" will still show up on either CZ or external search, but will go to an article that puts it into proper context. If this must stay, against my advice because the title is misleading, then cut it back to a very brief explanation that the term has only "talking point" meaning, and a link to the specific information.

I am continuing to add to the catalog and its subarticles; while some of the definitions are only "lemmas", I do plan to improve those technique subarticles to include, wherever possible, sourced legal opinions on their use as well as explanations of the techniques themselves. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The main article has been redirected to Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration. If one looks at the article draft moved to the talk page, there really don't seem to be any explicit statements about how, when and where the manual was to be used, but more generalities from politicians and journalists.
In the redirection target, there is an actual (and continuing) detail of policies in effect, including [de]classified ones, in the 2001-2009 period, as well as actions not specified above — perhaps because a manual was never the basis of what was being done. Take the example of Carolyn Wood, mentioned generally here, but in terms of places, dates, and actions in the new article; I may be supplementing that farther.
Essentially, this specific phrase doesn't have any specific referent. It was used in some discussions, but there was never a manual with that exact name. Now, if this article had been entitled FM 34-62, Intelligence Interrogation (1987), we might not be having this problem — but it was not titled that. Even if it were, FM 34-62 was by no means the only document even before its replacement. If interrogation procedures in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the real issue, which I believe they are, then the Rumsfeld memos, including the approval of techniques listed by Phifer or Sanchez, are definitive. There were techniques approved, and used, which were never listed in any Field Manual. Overemphasing the FM catchphrase just confuses the actual situation.
I really don't want to move this somewhat argumentative but accurate statement into the article, but I'm willing to entertain some suggestion about a brief addition of some references were made to defining interrogation according to an unspecified "United States Army Field Manual on Interrogation", but, in practice, the actual rules never depended on a specific U.S. Army manual. Indeed, a number of the techniques were not only not in FM 34-62 or its successors, but contrary to doctrinal statements in that manual; there is a wide spectrum of professional intelligence opinion that those additional techniques were counterproductive. At the same time, there were actual occurrences, some of which went far beyond what Rumsfeld authorized, which should not be ignored with the manual side issue — the significant thing is that they violated classified senior command guidance in effect at the time.
Note that there is no definition, related articles, bibliography, or external links subpages to be deleted. Should, perhaps, an archive of this talk page be linked from the active article? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We could do that. We could also merge the two histories by and archive it over there. It's up to you, but it seems it would be nice to have it all together. D. Matt Innis 05:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to merge them, but I'm willing to have it there as a link. The article here was not merged into the other article, so its history should not be merged. Merging implies, I think, some acceptance of the theory here that there ever was a document of the title here in control of U.S. policy. I can't prove a negative; I have, however, detailed what the controlling documents and practices were from late 2001 to the present. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about just merging the talk page histories and then archive this talk page over on maybe the US, GW BUSH article. What happened to the information that was in this article if you didn't move some of it somewhere? D. Matt Innis 06:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to research an exact answer, but some things that variously incorrectly referred to documents, or were sheer speculation, were deleted. To the best of my memory, none of the narrative in this article went there. Oh, there are obviously common names such as Carolyn Wood or Donald Rumsfeld, but otherwise, I wrote those articles from scratch. There simply wasn't enough accurate content here to be useful; from the title outwards, it was based on flawed assumptions. The two articles share having to do with U.S. interrogation in the last few years, although the material here stopped being updated, even with journalistic stuff. There was absolutely no common talk discussion here and there.
There could be a sentence or two in the new article saying "some public statements referred to a 'U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation' as being the policy guidance, but at no time, certainly during the tenure of Donald Rumsfeld, were the interrogation techniques ever limited to those in a manual." Howard C. Berkowitz 06:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)