Likesausages

Welcome!

Hello, Likesausages, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Geniac (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Questions re citation form and other matters

See Wikipedia:Citation templates, the first paragraph in particular. No, you don't have to sign with tildes when doing any edit because the time, date and your username are logged in the article history. Wikipedia doesn't have such an email-when-page-changes function. However, you could use a service like http://www.watchthatpage.com/ or http://www.changedetection.com/ --Geniac (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft for Alan Aviles

This is a draft article for Alan Aviles, head of HHC.

Draft for Changes on Waterboarding Article

Controversy over classification as torture in the United States

Whether waterboarding should be classified as a method of torture was not widely debated in the United States before it was alleged, in 2004, that members of the CIA had used the technique against certain suspected detained terrorists.

Subsequently, the United States government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects. The OLC reasoned that "in order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe" and that waterboarding did not cause severe pain or suffering either physically or mentally.

As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning—even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering"… The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering… We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject's mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute. Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, e.g., mental harm lasting months or years. Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absence of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.

For over three years during the Bush Administration, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility conducted an investigation into the propriety of this and other memos by the Justice Department on waterboarding and other "enhanced" interrogation techniques. The OPR is set to conclude its investigation in late May or June 2009 and reportedly will recommend professional sanctions, if not criminal prosecution, against the authors of the memos. Commentators have noted that the memos omitted key relevant precedents, including a Texas precedent under then-Governor George W. Bush when the state convicted and sentenced to prison for 10 years a county sheriff for waterboarding a criminal suspect. Then Governor Bush did not issue a pardon for the sheriff.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former Republican U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Foundation for the Republican leaning Defense of Democracies Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils". Nevertheless, McCarthy in the same article admits that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture" and that "[t]here shouldn't be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture".

Some American politicians have unequivocally stated that it is their belief that waterboarding is not torture. In response to the question "Do you believe waterboarding is torture?" on the Glenn Beck Program, Republican Representative Ted Poe stated "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't". Beck agreed with him.

Jim Meyers, a conservative commentator for NewsMax Media, stated that he does not believe that waterboarding should be classified as a form of torture, because he does not believe it inflicts pain.

However, other officials, including several within the Bush Administration, and American politicians and commentators have questioned the legality of waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Philip Zelikow, who served as a top adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Counselor of the United States Department of State and before that as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commision, testified before Congress on May 13, 2009 that he and his colleagues had tried in 2005 to rein in the interrogation program; Zelikow said that in response the Bush Administration tried to collect and destroy copies of a memo he had written disagreeing with the Justice Department’s legal opinions on interrogations.

Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under Colin Powell, told a news agency that in hindsight maybe he should have resigned over his suspicions regarding the Administration's use of torture techniques like waterboarding.

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan and expert in constitutional and international law, wrote in an editorial in the Washington Times in February 2009, "[w]aterboarding has been prosecuted as torture since the Spanish-American War of 1898. Former Republican Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge concurs that waterboarding is torture."

Jack Goldsmith, former head of the OLC starting in 2003, quit after only nine months because he reportedly disagreed with and fought against what have become known as the "torture memos" written by his colleague John Yoo. Goldsmith wrote a book in which he wrote about some of his experiences and his belief that the torture memos defined torture too narrowly.

In another example, Professor Wilson R. Huhn's 2008 scholarly editorial "Waterboarding is Illegal", published by Washington University Law Review, directly questions the legality of the technique from a legal perspective.

In May 2008 the journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding. He managed to resist for twelve seconds the first time, and, embarrassed at his poor performance, he asked to try again. He then managed to resist for 19 seconds. He later told the BBC: "There is a common misconception that waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning". He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: "I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered". Hitchens concluded, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It's torture".

On May 22, 2009, conservative radio talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller subjected himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture. Mancow was able to endure the technique for six seconds, a few moments after which he declared, "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke." Mancow likened it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child and had to be revived. Mancow said, "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Sean Hannity, another right-wing commentator who claims that waterboarding is not torture and has described those who oppose waterboarding as "moral fools", had declared on April 22, 2009 that he would similarly subject himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture. Sean Hannity has not yet subjected himself to the technique and did not respond when a left-wing commentator, Keith Olbermann, offered to donate $1,000 to charity for each second of waterboarding endured. Although Keith Olbermann has since withdrawn his offer calling it unnecessary after Mancow's admission (above) that waterboarding is torture, former Minnesota Governor and Navy Seal Jesse Ventura told the Huffington Post, "I'll bet [Hannity] a thousand bucks that I can get him to say 'Barack Obama is the greatest president' -- if I get him to say it, he'll give the thousand to charity and if I can't, I'll give the money to charity."

On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it.

test [1]

reply

Great work rookie, some of what you have written is already covered in the article but that will get sorted over time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Family

I just noticed your comment to Jeff Sharlet. I wandered away from the page thanks to some edit wars elsewhere, but if you need any assistance at the Family's article, please let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia

It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4#Category:Members_of_the_Family_also_known_as_the_Fellowship, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

[2] "(→Private diplomacy: this edit was improperly undone b/c of references. References are RS.)" What is toobeautiful.org? Why is it being cited? It appears to be a blog. Weblogs are not reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Likesausages and Goethean,

I managed to find an official (for fee) source for Lisa Getter's article.

It is available for $3.95 at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/196922601.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT

I verified that it matches the copyvio source at http://www.toobeautiful.org/lat_020927.html

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, should I get rid of the link to toobeautiful.org because it contains a copy of the latimes article in violation of copyright?

Wikipedia policy seems to say "yes".

However, the documentation for the {{Citation}} template says that URLs to a "free online version of the full text" is preferred.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you K2. Interesting that goethean would rather use this minor issue over how to cite a valid source as a pretext to delete a substantive contribution rather than searching for a constructive way like you did to resolve the issue.Likesausages (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is even more interesting that User:Likesausages would rather accuse someone of editing in bad faith rather than answer a simple, obvious question. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

? The question was answered already by the time I read your post. The deletion of a good add to the Fellowship piece supported by a valid article from the LA Times that happened to appear on another web site (which I did not notice by the way), was an overreaction.Likesausages (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice that you were linking to a weblog rather than the LA Times? — goethean ॐ 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the LA Times article posted online. I cut and paste the address of the site at which the article was posted. I did not focus on the web address or that the LA Times article happened to be posted on a web site other than the LA Times web site.Likesausages (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Likesausages and Goethean,

The discussion I started about Category:International Christian Leadership resulted in that category being deleted.

I have replaced the category with a new Navbox, {{The Fellowship Navbox}}.

I would appreciate it if you would comment, edit, and watch the Navbox.

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership for more info.

Thank you, --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Possible ads: a photo, such as of Vereide, Coe or C Street (I could not find a public domain one but maybe you will have better luck). Can we add a list of residents and/or persons associated with C Street? I know we said no to a category - but does that mean we can't include those people in a list in a nav box, like Template:Current U.S. Senators?

Past and former national politician residents is an objective, relevant standard. In fact, I am thinking of a new subheading entitled "Tax violation" under the finances heading, and including those politician residents who improperly received tax free/below market/501(c)(3) rates. Would appreciate your thoughts.Likesausages (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Likesausages,

If it was to be a sidebar instead of a "bottom of article" navbox, an image would be a good addition. However, I have not seen any navboxes that have images in them.

About current and former residents, I think we would open up too much of a BLP minefield if we included them in the navbox. There are two things I think we could add without stepping on BLP mines:

• Current and former officers and directors, especially as identified by filings with the IRS.
• Closely associated organizations: Wilberforce Foundation, Traditional Values Coalition, Three Swallows Foundation

In the discussion about Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship, both John Carter[3][4] and Bradjamesbrown[5] supported creating an article, List of individuals associated with the Fellowship. I suggest that we create such an article, populate it with the individuals noted by Dec 31 and Dec 14 revisions.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledge and agree with your responses to my comments, except looks like someone beat me to the punch by adding associated persons to the subsection Extent of Influence: Organizations and Individuals - am a bit backed up right now but at some point I will add the party affiliation and state for each of the politicians and note whether they are or were a resident.Likesausages (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful links and personal pages

• wp:tutorial
• wp:department directory
• Help:Editing

• user:Likesausages/Personal sandbox

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)