Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is horribly biased. The law is the Detainee Treatment Act, not the McCain Hagiography Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
this article is incredibly biased. And does 2/3 of the article need to be taken up by john mccain's own statement on the issue? It's totally ridiculous. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.133.247 (talk • contribs)
-I agree with this. Really, a simple link to McCain's speech would be sufficient. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.86.206 (talk • contribs)
I'll take a shot at it, following which those who see further improvements now that this article is linked from a high visibility article should do so. Jon 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Is McCain's speech a [Work of the US Government]? If so, it's public domain.
Recent articles have Defense Department officials referring to a "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005". Is there such a law, or is it just an amendment to another law? --Uncle Ed 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, there is NO, I repeat NOT A SINGLE page of the interrogation manual that is classified. This is outdated and incorrect information. The manual in its entirety can be found via Google (FM 2-22.3). There are no hidden or classified portions omitted.
The amendment was intended to put an end to rough interrogation tactics, by classifying such as waterboarding as "cruel":
It looks to me like "severe pain or suffering" and "cruel" are synonymous, so the effect of the amendment is to brand waterboarding as torture. This would either force the US military to stop doing it, or open them to accusations of "violating the torture treaty".
Are there any quotable sources which make this argument? I don't want to waste time drawing my own conclusions.
I reckon anyway that the effect of the amendment was to sharpen the distinction between forbidden and permitted methods of interrogation. I'm not sure how much hay Bush opponents managed to make of it. Calling it the "anti-torture amendment" seems partisan, because the US is already against torture.
We need to organize our articles relating to this:
The Field Manual (FM) linked in this article is not currently in use. The correct FM, titled FM 2-22.3 - Human Intelligence Collection Operations can be found at: http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf which is the one that the DTA of 2005 binds to the current FM that lists the only authorized approaches and techniques allowed to DOD interrogators. I will not actually modify the article, since I am not well versed in wikipediaease. Jerry.mills (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Renaming an article without discussion to what certainly is a less accurate name appears to beg to be undone. Please make it so.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Only cursory mention of relevant court rulings on the Act, lots of unencyclopedic cruft, and a huge unbalanced WP:COATRACK for criticism of the Act, without any balance. THF (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of the Wikipedia policy WP:COATRACK is that a summary of criticism of, for example, a specific law, in an article dealing with that specific law, would not qualify as a "Coatrack". Rather than excluding relevant critical content, I would suggest that WP:NPOV in a case like this one would be better accomplished by including content that you feel would give a more balanced perspective. 174.101.53.148 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The important case Boumediene v. Bush overturned the habeas corpus provision of the act, but isn't mentioned. --173.76.61.28 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Detainee Treatment Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/HRF-Undue-Process-Afghanistan-web.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Detainee Treatment Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.